Are You Republican or Royalist?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i would much prefer not to have goats to be got ..... i am not in favour of presidents at all ... i prefer the collective head of state, five is a handy number ... ask the swiss if their big cheeses are holy .. ... this fetishism of individuals is another goat getter .... innit

[ahinton]

Prince Charles has had proper breeding to continue the excellent job that Ma'am does, even though, like Ma'am herself, he is an imposter and therefore otherwise thorough bounder.

What's "proper breeding? How do you distinguish it from any other kind? How can anyone "properly bred" be an impostor(sp.) at the same time? On what grounds do you allege that HRH the Prince of West Herefordistan is an "impostor"? And what is a "bounder" other, in his case and capacity, perhaps, than one who regularly bounds across that border between his principality and the said West Herefordistan?

I don't fancy the idea of having to kowtow to 'moderns' like William 'n' Kate one little bit, even from the grave

You're almost beginning to sound like Sydney Grew! Why?

so when Charlie pops his clogs, get rid of the current obnoxious anti-Catholic establishment (both religious and secular)

I thought that the bar against Catholics ascending to the throne is about to be abolished; what you you want, scotty? - jam and communion wine on both sides of your bread?

and restore the Stuarts to their rightful ascendancy and everyone will live happily ever after ...

Ah, yes, that's more like it! Let the country be ruled by a firm of piano manufacturers in New South Wales rather than by the present Prince of Old North and South Wales...

[aeolium]

Of course few establishments were more anti-Catholic than the government of Charles II who introduced the Test Acts in 1673 and 1678, the first being "An Act for preventing dangers which may happen from Popish recusants" and the second being "An Act for the more effectuall preserving the Kings Person and Government by disableing Papists from sitting in either House of Parlyament."

The old argument that if you get rid of the monarchy you end up with Bush or Blair is a pretty feeble one. The Irish have just elected an academic, human rights activist and poet as their head of state.

[Sydney Grew]

That it appears on the face of it to be undemocratic; which bit of that requires further elucidation?

"Undemocratic" - and so . . . what?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

"Undemocratic" - and so . . . what?

BAD

[decantor]

The old argument that if you get rid of the monarchy you end up with Bush or Blair is a pretty feeble one. The Irish have just elected an academic, human rights activist and poet as their head of state.

I find that brush-off argument itself pretty feeble. The Americans elected Bush twice, and the Brits elected Blair three times; the Irish elected their poet only once. That gives us a one-in-six chance of avoiding calamity. But, in any case, how many of our electorate would turn out to vote for a titular President? 50% the first time, and 25% thereafter? How long would it be before an X-Factor winner became President through Cowell sponsorship? If the Presidency is merely titular, what is the value in regular elections? Why not stick with what we have, with its roots in our past and its branches uniting our institutions (armed forces etc)? What is the especial merit of discontinuity in our Head of State, and how precisely is an elected commoner a better global representative of our nation? Is the Trooping of the Colour somehow enhanced if a show-biz celebrity in an ill-fitting suit is taking the salute?

Ah yes. Democracy. Well, a foreign, unsympathetic, hugely expensive institution in Brussels makes daily impact on our lives - yet it is just as undemocratic as the monarchy...... more so, as it has real power and far higher unaccounted costs. So why are the 'democrats' making the sovereign their first target? And again - has nobody noticed that our Royal Family arouses huge interest world-wide, while most non-executive Presidents are unknown outside their own country? This is indeed only a minor point, but it brings our country some cachet (and, yes, scandal occasionally) which can be useful when foreign powers are impressionable. Why pass up the advantage just so that we can say we voted for Sir Bruce? And all the silly little historical anomalies - RCs, primogeniture - are being addressed as the moment seems appropriate. Finally, since they know they can be swept away if ever it seems expedient, the Royals are unlikely to kick too far over the traces. The republican programme leaves me aghast....... as you can tell. They appear to want to delete our history and identity.

[ahinton]

"Undemocratic" - and so . . . what?

And so - just that; I remain unable to fathom what it may be that you appear incapable of understanding here, so let's have one more try. The sentence as a whole in which the (for you) problematic word occurs runs
"To return to the issue concerned, it does on the face of it appear to be undemocratic for such unique privileges to be accorded to the Prince of Wales and it makes one wonder whether the same or similar ones are accorded to anyone else."
This means that, although Britain is ostensibly a democracy with an electoral system that has been in place for many years, this article points up a particular privilege that has been awarded to the Prince of Wales but is not, as far as I understand, available to anyone else and, since that privilege appears to be predicated largely if not wholly upon whether or not certain prospective changes in the law might impact upon certain of his businesses and their activities, it seems to run counter to the supposedly democratic environment in which they have been accorded to him. For the record, I am not seeking to accuse Prince Charles of underhandedness or of acting in an overbearing manner over this, because it is as yet unclear whether or not he has ever actually taken advantage of that privilege by challenging any prospective changes in British legislation or, if so, whether any such challenges have been successful; likewise, however, it has not been shown why such a particular privilege has been accorded to him, when, how or by whom so, until more is known about the detail of this, the situation as it stands and as presented in that article appears to remain an undemocratic one.

I really don't know what else I can tell you that might explain what you appear to need to have explained to you.

[Richard Tarleton]

I'm puzzled by some of the arguments in this thread. The French have an elected head of state yet seem to manage the ceremonial bit OK and aren't short of tourists. And there's a world of difference between largely ceremonial heads of state (Ireland - more like a university chancellor really) - and elected presidents or prime ministsters - but the hereditary monarch is not an alternative to them, if we happen to elect a Bush or Blair.

Also I'm sceptical about the "work" which royals are alleged to do. They don't make or produce anything, they don't manage anything (even their own time), they enjoy total financial and job security regardless of targets or deadlines. They merely turn up to things, travel arrangements made by others, and say or do things arranged or written for them. They exchange banalities with people, make speeches. They don't even have to be nice to people - Philip, Andrew and Anne have made careers out of being spectacularly rude to people who can't answer back. Charles uses his position to extract money from people for his charities.

The more you start to pick it apart, the less defensible it seems to be, to me at any rate. I think Brian Blessed would make rather a good Head of State.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

The Swiss President is not – as are, for example, the Presidents in Austria or Germany – the Head of State of the country: the Swiss Federal Constitution knows neither a Head of State nor a Head of Government. Both of these functions are administered by the Federal Council collectively. If a tied vote occurs in the council (which does not happen too often, the number of Federal Councillors being an odd number), the President, being its Chair, casts the deciding vote.

i am a republican along the swiss way with it but all arguments are shot through with holes eh ...

[ahinton]

i am a republican along the swiss way with it but all arguments are shot through with holes eh ...

Indeed - some even big enough tgo drive a goat and horses through, n'est-ce pas?

That said, you bring to mind whoever it was that asserted that the only tasy bits of Dutch cheese were the holes therein...

[aeolium]

The Americans elected Bush twice, and the Brits elected Blair three times; the Irish elected their poet only once. That gives us a one-in-six chance of avoiding calamity.

The difference with those American and British elections of course is the powerful influence of party - in Britain particularly people are not electing a Prime Minister but electing a party to govern, and the leader of that party chosen to govern is the Prime Minister. And the Irish have elected some pretty good people before this - Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese.

What is the especial merit of discontinuity in our Head of State, and how precisely is an elected commoner a better global representative of our nation?

Precisely because they are elected rather than chosen by an accident of birth, which really should not be a determining element for any high office in the C21. In fact the history of the British monarchy has been one of considerable discontinuity, with monarchs in many cases taking the throne by force, after civil war or rebellion.

There is also the matter of the Royal Prerogative, which still has tentacles extending into UK law, for instance in the matter of the Chagos Islanders who were exiled some years ago by a use of the Royal Prerogative (Order in Council). Having a republic should enable better reform and control of the executive which effectively benefits from RP powers.

[MrGongGong]

aside from all the stuff about "democracy"
surely this http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...e-stat-001.jpg
is reason enough to want to get rid of them !!! (and the toadying Witchell on the BBC )

[Curalach]

I think Brian Blessed would make rather a good Head of State.

Richard, I was with you up until your last sentence

[Richard Tarleton]

aside from all the stuff about "democracy"
surely this http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...e-stat-001.jpg
is reason enough to want to get rid of them !!! (and the toadying Witchell on the BBC )

Agreed re Poundbury - a guillotining offence. But Witchell is I think the BBC's little joke - they keep him on because he annoys Charles.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

some even big enough tgo drive a goat and horses through, n'est-ce pas?

...camels! what have they got to do with it ...