When one irrelevance defends another....

[Simon]

Well it has been suggested that Prince Andrew hasn't always ... acted as wisely as he might. Admittedly this is in the Trotskyite Daily Mail, but still http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...al-Family.html

I agree he hasn't always acted wisely, and sometimes not thought through his actions. I expect many of us have done the same.

A closer read of the Glover article will reveal, however, just how much is evidence-based substance of real import and how much is a journalist cultivating column inches!

[Serial_Apologist]

Well it has been suggested that Prince Andrew hasn't always ... acted as wisely as he might. Admittedly this is in the Trotskyite Daily Mail, but still http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...al-Family.html

Whatever "HM" has or hasn't ever done, the point remains: removing a monarch or getting a monarch to remove her / his self is from extremely difficult to impossible. In the past some of them have been rather damagingly eccentric. You can always chop their head /s off, of course. In fact, do a 'heritage beheading' in C17 costumes, with a Royal Commentator doing a voice over for the DVD, and in terms of tourist and related franchise revenue the country would surely be on to a winner.

Or taxidermise and then put them in Madame Tussaud's - but remember that waiters [sic] aren't supposed to ask those they serve if they want stuffing.

[John Skelton]

I agree he hasn't always acted wisely, and sometimes not thought through his actions. I expect many of us have done the same.

Many of us don't experience the of course entirely disinterested hospitality of rich people, not have the need to lift a finger to help ourselves, have an army of assistants and sycophants to run around after us. So the generalisation seems a touch lame.

A closer read of the Glover article will reveal, however, just how much is evidence-based substance of real import and how much is a journalist cultivating column inches!

Well quite. Thank goodness the coverage of benefit cheats, immigration scandals, etc. is so much more scrupulous.

Returning to my original observation - you seemed to be suggesting that Wulff being forced out of 'office' was an argument for monarchy. It's at least as much an argument for a republic, though - since abdication is rare and short of chopping off their heads (or other means) there's no obvious way of getting rid of a monarch.

[Simon]

Many of us don't experience the of course entirely disinterested hospitality of rich people, not have the need to lift a finger to help ourselves, have an army of assistants and sycophants to run around after us. So the generalisation seems a touch lame.

Not lame at all. Just an reasonable observation that none of us are above errors of many kinds. And your claims - certainly the last two - are rather wild, as Andrew most certainly does have to "lift a finger to help himself" and is certainly not followed around by "an army" of assistants and sycophants.

Well quite. Thank goodness the coverage of benefit cheats, immigration scandals, etc. is so much more scrupulous.

Some is, some isn't. In any paper there are going to be variations in the quality and substance of the reporting and the Mail is no exception. The key, in my view, is to try to see through the froth to the facts: in some cases easier said than done.

Returning to my original observation - you seemed to be suggesting that Wulff being forced out of 'office' was an argument for monarchy. It's at least as much an argument for a republic, though - since abdication is rare and short of chopping off their heads (or other means) there's no obvious way of getting rid of a monarch.

I was intending to point out that perhaps, if one listed all the Heads of State across the world over the past 60 years and compared their records, our own hereditary Queen would probably, to any unbiased observer, be assessed as having done a rather good job in terms of service, devotion to duty and integrity.

The fact that it would be difficult to remove her is rather irrelevant, as I gather that the vast majority of the people don't want to do that.

[John Skelton]

The fact that it would be difficult to remove her is rather irrelevant, as I gather that the vast majority of the people don't want to do that.

Probably not. But if they should want to remove the next one there isn't a mechanism for doing so.

[scottycelt]

Probably not. But if they should want to remove the next one there isn't a mechanism for doing so.

Are you absolutely sure about that ....?

Parliament has removed a monarch before and there is little reason to doubt that if the opinion in the country was that a monarch was, say, unfit to govern he/she could be forced out. However, I do doubt whether those who advise the Royal Family would ever allow it come to that sorry pass.

I must confess that I find all this anti-monarchy stuff on here curious, to say the least. As Simon rightly points out, the huge majority of British people simply don't want an elected president and are more than happy with the institution of the monarchy, if not always with the odd individual member who may happen to be part of the royal family. Every published opinion poll that I've seen in my lifetime overwhelmingly confirms this long-settled opinion. Some monarchs will be more popular than others just like prime ministers.

Of course, it is conceivable that things could change in the future, and, if that happens and the popular tide turns against royalty, republicans in the UK would then have the strongest of cases.

However, right now, they do not have a case at all ...

[John Skelton]

I didn't express a view on the monarchy in this instance. Simon seemed to think that Christian Wulff being forced out / resigning was a triumphant argument against republicanism and for monarchy. I was suggesting that it could just as easily be regarded as an argument for republicanism - the fact that he has had to go. Whereas a monarch, with all the 'constitutional' paraphernalia and complexities, is certainly difficult to get rid of. If not, as you say, impossible.

I agree that if there was a referendum opinion polls suggest there would be a pro-monarchy vote. Of course, if there were different referendums opinion polls suggest there would be a vote for leaving the EU and for restoring capital punishment. At which point, perhaps, your enthusiasm for popular sentiment might take a cooler turn .

For me they are part of the problem rather than The Problem and I have no interest in seeing an elected president, etc. I was really only trying to tease out why according to Simon Wulff's resignation showed the superiority of a more unaccountable institution (monarchy) over an when push comes to shove sort of accountable institution like a presidency. That was all.

[MrGongGong]

However, right now, they do not have a case at all ...

So back to the dull and mediocre then

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

However, right now, they do not have a case at all ...

A little harsh, scotty? There is "a case" to argue in favour of republicanism, and against hereditary privilege. The fact (and I agree, in terms of current popular opinion, maintaining the status quo is preferred to the hassle of change) that these cases wouldn't gain overwhelming popular support doesn't negate their validity as arguments?

[MrGongGong]

Just because "most people" think that something is a good idea, doesn't make it a good idea, right or ethical..........

[Flosshilde]

I'm so glad to be able to provide you gentlemen with a ready butt for your rapier wit!

It's always useful to know your place in the world, Simon.

[scottycelt]

I didn't express a view on the monarchy in this instance. Simon seemed to think that Christian Wulff being forced out / resigning was a triumphant argument against republicanism and for monarchy. I was suggesting that it could just as easily be regarded as an argument for republicanism - the fact that he has had to go. Whereas a monarch, with all the 'constitutional' paraphernalia and complexities, is certainly difficult to get rid of. If not, as you say, impossible.

I agree that if there was a referendum opinion polls suggest there would be a pro-monarchy vote. Of course, if there were different referendums opinion polls suggest there would be a vote for leaving the EU and for restoring capital punishment. At which point, perhaps, your enthusiasm for popular sentiment might take a cooler turn .

For me they are part of the problem rather than The Problem and I have no interest in seeing an elected president, etc. I was really only trying to tease out why according to Simon Wulff's resignation showed the superiority of a more unaccountable institution (monarchy) over an when push comes to shove sort of accountable institution like a presidency. That was all.

'My enthusiasm for popular sentiment' is possibly about as strong as your apparent 'agnosticism' regarding the monarchy.

Like you, I was not attempting to argue from a particular position (though, like most people, I do have a personal view) but merely to state the reality of an overwhelming support for the monarchy in the country. Republicans would only really have a case to change things if they could command majority backing, otherwise it would be wholly undemocratic, blatantly defying the known wishes of 'the people'.

I do not deny for one moment that a call for capital punishment might well get a majority though it is up to some of those who wish to see change to stand for parliament at elections and put their case to the electorate!

As for the EU, I'm not so sure the majority vote would be for leaving the EU as all the main parties would be for staying in, as was the case at the referendum in the 1970's. People would be left in no doubt about the consequences of leaving. If they chose to defy the advice of all the main political players who matter and instead believe the stuff they read in the Sun and Daily Mail then so be it ... that's democracy for you!

Now don't get me started ...

[Flosshilde]

Some is, some isn't. In any paper there are going to be variations in the quality and substance of the reporting and the Mail is no exception. The key, in my view, is to try to see through the froth to the facts: in some cases easier said than done.

So reports critical of Prince Andrew are 'froth', while reports attacking benefit cheats etc are 'facts'?

btw, I think most of us here are well aware that newspaper reports aren't always entirely factual, or at least sometimes distort the information available, & have to be read with care. Why, I even queried a statement by Polly Toynbe in her latest column in Friday's Guardian - I felt that I'd need to see the evidence before I could take it at face value. I'm surprised that you had to explain to us that it was something you did. Is it something you've just started doing, & felt you had to share this new discovery?

[scottycelt]

A little harsh, scotty? There is "a case" to argue in favour of republicanism, and against hereditary privilege. The fact (and I agree, in terms of current popular opinion, maintaining the status quo is preferred to the hassle of change) that these cases wouldn't gain overwhelming popular support doesn't negate their validity as arguments?

No, I don't think it's harsh, ferney, more 'realistic' ... if the country clearly doesn't want something any argument in favour, even a good one, is somewhat irrelevant?

I'm not anti-republican in principle, far from it, though as far as the UK is concerned I think the monarchy, warts and all, works pretty well and has the solid backing of the populace.

Why change it ... ?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

No, I don't think it's harsh, ferney, more 'realistic' ... if the country clearly doesn't want something any argument in favour, even a good one, is somewhat irrelevant?

I would agree that it is unrealistic that the pro-Republican case would gain little popular support, but that isn't the same thing as "having no case at all": if you'd said "no chance" I wouldn't have disagreed. Much.

I think the monarchy ... has the solid backing of the populace.

I'm not so sure. Certainly most people who express an opinion back the monarchy, but I suspect that there are quite as many who are apathetic. Given a choice from the questions "Do you support the monarchy?" "Are you a republican?" and "Do you not give a flying flip either way?" I think there'd be a substantial number of people who'd select the last option.