Has King Charles III died?

[Monte]

Chucky isn't a "committed environmentalist", he just yearns for the days when common oiks sweated in the fields without the help of modern chemical agronomics and machinery to reduce the burden of fattening the larders of their betters.

I wouldn't like Blair as President either, but I still want to be able to actually vote for someone instead of having no choice but to suffer with inbred creeps like Andrew.

I dislike politicians more than I dislike the Royal Family.
I like a head of state with no political power.
Any elected HoS is inherently political and therefore divisive.

I'm pragmatic rather than ideological on this issue (on most issues in fact).

I get all the arguments about inherited power but I don't think the monarch has any real power any more. What meaningful difference has Charles made to your life since inheriting the hat of stolen gems?
New coins and stamps? Meh.

 

[NoXion]

I dislike politicians more than I dislike the Royal Family.
I like a head of state with no political power.
Any elected HoS is inherently political and therefore divisive.

I'm pragmatic rather than ideological on this issue (on most issues in fact).

I get all the arguments about inherited power but I don't think the monarch has any real power any more. What meaningful difference has Charles made to your life since inheriting the hat of stolen gems?
New coins and stamps? Meh.

So you're fine with inherited privilege in the place of a democratic mandate. You're also assuming that monarchies aren't political or divisive, which is just bollocks.

Your "pragmatism" is thus far indistinguishable from the usual monarchist knee-bending.

The British royals are one of the biggest landowners in the world, and their position enables them to help themselves to the property of the deceased. Property is money. Money is power. Power is political. The fact that I'm too poor to even get into the land-owning game not a good enough reason for me not to care.

 

[Pickman's model]

I dislike politicians more than I dislike the Royal Family.
I like a head of state with no political power.
Any elected HoS is inherently political and therefore divisive.

I'm pragmatic rather than ideological on this issue (on most issues in fact).

I get all the arguments about inherited power but I don't think the monarch has any real power any more. What meaningful difference has Charles made to your life since inheriting the hat of stolen gems?
New coins and stamps? Meh.

There are none more blind than those who will not see.

 

[Pickman's model]

So you're fine with inherited privilege in the place of a democratic mandate. You're also assuming that monarchies aren't political or divisive, which is just bollocks.

Your "pragmatism" is thus far indistinguishable from the usual monarchist knee-bending.

The British royals are one of the biggest landowners in the world, and their position enables them to help themselves to the property of the deceased. Property is money. Money is power. Power is political. The fact that I'm too poor to even get into the land-owning game not a good enough reason for me not to care.

the way the late queen and the last Prince of Wales involved themselves in the legislative process to their own benefit is obviously not political

 

[Pickman's model]

The solution is quite simple. It involves the people and guns or guillotines.

Rope could be good too

 

[krtek a houby]

I dislike politicians more than I dislike the Royal Family.
I like a head of state with no political power.
Any elected HoS is inherently political and therefore divisive.

I'm pragmatic rather than ideological on this issue (on most issues in fact).

I get all the arguments about inherited power but I don't think the monarch has any real power any more. What meaningful difference has Charles made to your life since inheriting the hat of stolen gems?
New coins and stamps? Meh.

He's no business being head of state in the six counties, there's that.

 

[Monte]

So you're fine with inherited privilege in the place of a democratic mandate. You're also assuming that monarchies aren't political or divisive, which is just bollocks.

Your "pragmatism" is thus far indistinguishable from the usual monarchist knee-bending.

The British royals are one of the biggest landowners in the world, and their position enables them to help themselves to the property of the deceased. Property is money. Money is power. Power is political. The fact that I'm too poor to even get into the land-owning game not a good enough reason for me not to care.

I'm happy to inherit the meagre wealth of my parents. I wouldn't want it to go straight to the state.

The constitution prevents the monarch from even giving their political opinion let alone wielding political power. I doubt you could tell me whether the queen was for or against Brexit for example.

To misquote Churchill,
''constitutional monarchy is the worst possible system, apart from all the others''.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm happy to inherit the meagre wealth of my parents. I wouldn't want it to go straight to the state.

The constitution prevents the monarch from even giving their political opinion let alone wielding political power. I doubt you could tell me whether the queen was for or against Brexit for example.

To misquote Churchill,
''constitutional monarchy is the worst possible system, apart from all the others''.

The monarch meets the prime minister every week. How often do you meet even the most junior mp?

 

[krtek a houby]

I'm happy to inherit the meagre wealth of my parents. I wouldn't want it to go straight to the state.

The constitution prevents the monarch from even giving their political opinion let alone wielding political power. I doubt you could tell me whether the queen was for or against Brexit for example.

To misquote Churchill,
''constitutional monarchy is the worst possible system, apart from all the others''.

Churchill was an aristocratic monster as well.

 

[Monte]

Churchill was an aristocratic monster as well.

So is Trump.
You don't need a monarchy or an aristocracy to have inherited wealth and power.
At least the monarch has no executive power.

 

[krtek a houby]

So is Trump.
You don't need a monarchy or an aristocracy to have inherited wealth and power.
At least the monarch has no executive power.

But what do they do? What are they there for?

 

[NoXion]

I'm happy to inherit the meagre wealth of my parents. I wouldn't want it to go straight to the state.

The constitution prevents the monarch from even giving their political opinion let alone wielding political power. I doubt you could tell me whether the queen was for or against Brexit for example.

To misquote Churchill,
''constitutional monarchy is the worst possible system, apart from all the others''.

The monarch is the state. They're a part of the whole apparatus.

We don't have a constitution. We have a bunch of written laws and unwritten agreements that can be changed at any time. Nothing is entrenched or codified.

The fact that Elizabeth's opinions were not public does not mean that they did not exist, nor that such opinions were not conveyed in the regular meetings with elected officials. What do you think happens during those meetings? Do you think they are a purely social affair?

So is Trump.
You don't need a monarchy or an aristocracy to have inherited wealth and power.
At least the monarch has no executive power.

We can have a non-executive head of state without needing to keep around a bunch of monarchical ghouls. The United States is not the only model for a republican state.

 

[Monte]

The monarch meets the prime minister every week. How often do you meet even the most junior mp?

Sure but they are not allowed to state an opinion on political matters.
I could meet my MP and tell him exactly what I think if I chose to.

 

[Monte]

The monarch is the state. They're a part of the whole apparatus.

We don't have a constitution. We have a bunch of written laws and unwritten agreements that can be changed at any time. Nothing is entrenched or codified.

The fact that Elizabeth's opinions were not public does not mean that they did not exist, nor that such opinions were not conveyed in the regular meetings with elected officials. What do you think happens during those meetings? Do you think they are a purely social affair?




We can have a non-executive head of state without needing to keep around a bunch of monarchical ghouls. The United States is not the only model for a republican state.

We do have a constitution. It's made up of laws, conventions and acts of parliament.
Written constitutions can be changed too. I'm sure you've heard of Amendments.

The monarch is legally forbidden from expressing their opinion to elected officials. To do so would create a constitutional crisis. Remember the fuss when the queen was said to have ''purred with delight'' when she heard the result of the Scottish independence referendum?
I don't believe the monarch would get away with trying to actually influence an elected official.

Sure, if you can find a person who has never let their political opinion be known, after a lifetime of close public scrutiny, you can make them head of state. I look forward to your suggestions on how we find someone who fits the bill.

 

[Artaxerxes]

So is Trump.
You don't need a monarchy or an aristocracy to have inherited wealth and power.
At least the monarch has no executive power.

The monarchy has first sight of laws and gets to bypass or add caveats to laws it doesn’t like and has done so repeatedly to exempt it from discrimination laws and financial laws to regulate its dealings.


The monarchy has plenty of power but it is almost always hidden and non verbal aside from that. The soft influence of a person h high power who can put the right word in on behalf of them or access to power that can be cut off if a media org exposes the wrong story or isn’t deferential enough

 

[Monte]

But what do they do? What are they there for?

Next to nothing apart from ceremony, a feature not a bug.
They represent the Crown (the state).

 

[Monte]

The monarchy has first sight of laws and gets to bypass or add caveats to laws it doesn’t like and has done so repeatedly to exempt it from discrimination laws and financial laws to regulate its dealings.


The monarchy has plenty of power but it is almost always hidden and non verbal aside from that. The soft influence of a person h high power who can put the right word in on behalf of them or access to power that can be cut off if a media org exposes the wrong story or isn’t deferential enough

They have only opposed bills on a handful of occasions exclusively to protect their private estates.
I don't like this and I would like to see it stopped but I see it as a pretty minor abuse of power.
I believe an elected head of state would have far more influence.

 

[NoXion]

We do have a constitution. It's made up of laws, conventions and acts of parliament.
Written constitutions can be changed too. I'm sure you've heard of Amendments.

The monarch is legally forbidden from expressing their opinion to elected officials. To do so would create a constitutional crisis. Remember the fuss when the queen was said to have ''purred with delight'' when she heard the result of the Scottish independence referendum?
I don't believe the monarch would get away with trying to actually influence an elected official.

Sure, if you can find a person who has never let their political opinion be known, after a lifetime of close public scrutiny, you can make them head of state. I look forward to your suggestions on how we find someone who fits the bill.

Codified constitutions typically lay out a specific process for amending them. The UK has no such thing. We just have a bunch of things that can be changed in the normal way and call that a constitution.

A "fuss" is nothing. When you or I are discovered to be breaking the law, we get arrested and charged. Did that happen to Elizabeth? Did it fuck. She didn't even lose her job, remaining in office until her death. There is no meaningful penalty for monarchs breaking the law of the land. That is why monarchies should be abolished. Nobody should be above the law.

Non-executive doesn't mean apolitical. Here's the great thing about a person being in an elected position; if they do their job badly or if people end up not liking them, then they can be replaced. We don't get that choice with a monarchy. We're stuck with whatever maniacs and rapists are produced by centuries of aristocratic inbreeding.

 

[Monte]

Codified constitutions typically lay out a specific process for amending them. The UK has no such thing. We just have a bunch of things that can be changed in the normal way and call that a constitution.

A "fuss" is nothing. When you or I are discovered to be breaking the law, we get arrested and charged. Did that happen to Elizabeth? Did it fuck. She didn't even lose her job, remaining in office until her death. There is no meaningful penalty for monarchs breaking the law of the land. That is why monarchies should be abolished. Nobody should be above the law.

Non-executive doesn't mean apolitical. Here's the great thing about a person being in an elected position; if they do their job badly or if people end up not liking them, then they can be replaced. We don't get that choice with a monarchy. We're stuck with whatever maniacs and rapists are produced by centuries of aristocratic inbreeding.

A rumour that she ''purred with delight'' is going to be a difficult prosecution in any court of law.
Nor did it influence anything since it was after the referendum anyway.
The simple fact that it is the only example we have of her expressing a political opinion shows how seriously she took her responsibilities.
There is likely no more scrutinised a position in the country, if not the world.

It's all very understandable to oppose the idea of monarchy but you'll have to come up with an alternative system that isn't worse if you want to replace it as a method of selecting our HoS.

Much easier to criticise than come up with a better idea.

I'd love to have someone like Stephen Fry as our head of state but I doubt he would want the job and his political opinions are well known and would alienate half the population.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

A rumour that she ''purred with delight'' is going to be a difficult prosecution in any court of law.
Nor did it influence anything since it was after the referendum anyway.
The simple fact that it is the only example we have of her expressing a political opinion shows how seriously she took her responsibilities.
There is likely no more scrutinised a position in the country, if not the world.

It's all very understandable to oppose the idea of monarchy but you'll have to come up with an alternative system that isn't worse if you want to replace it as a method of selecting our HoS.

Much easier to criticise than come up with a better idea.

I'd love to have someone like Stephen Fry as our head of state but I doubt he would want the job and his political opinions are well known and would alienate half the population.

Couldn't we elect a Head of State every, say, 10 years? Then we could get rid of the rotten institution of monarchy, with all the extended family and hangers-on that we currently pay for.

 

[Monte]

Codified constitutions typically lay out a specific process for amending them. The UK has no such thing. We just have a bunch of things that can be changed in the normal way and call that a constitution.

A "fuss" is nothing. When you or I are discovered to be breaking the law, we get arrested and charged. Did that happen to Elizabeth? Did it fuck. She didn't even lose her job, remaining in office until her death. There is no meaningful penalty for monarchs breaking the law of the land. That is why monarchies should be abolished. Nobody should be above the law.

Non-executive doesn't mean apolitical. Here's the great thing about a person being in an elected position; if they do their job badly or if people end up not liking them, then they can be replaced. We don't get that choice with a monarchy. We're stuck with whatever maniacs and rapists are produced by centuries of aristocratic inbreeding.

The monarchy can be abolished by Parliament.
All it would take is the will of the public and a government prepared to act on that will.
Currently a majority of the public don't appear to want it but should a maniac rapist become the monarch I'm sure that would change and heads would roll (metaphorically if not literally).

Parliament is supreme and has been since the Civil War.

 

[Monte]

Couldn't we elect a Head of State every, say, 10 years? Then we could get rid of the rotten institution of monarchy, with all the extended family and hangers-on that we currently pay for.

Sure, if enough people would rather have an elected (and therefore political) HoS.
All it would take is an act of parliament.

 

[Sue]

Sure, if enough people would rather have an elected (and therefore political) HoS.
All it would take is an act of parliament.

You think our current HoS isn't political?

 

[ID47]

What's all this monarchical propaganda doing on Urban 75, can't you go post on the Mail comments instead?

 

[Monte]

You think our current HoS isn't political?

Correct.
Or at least I think it is as unpolitical as is practically possible.
If you have a suggestion to replace the current system with HoS that is less political I'm all ears.
Like I said, I'm not a Royalist. I'm just a constitutional monarchist but I'm open to suggestions.

 

[Monte]

What's all this monarchical propaganda doing on Urban 75, can't you go post on the Mail comments instead?

That's a rather shallow interpretation of the points I've tried to make. I can only assume you haven't read them or don't understand them.
I abhor right wing politics and the Daily Mail.
All I'm really saying is be careful what you wish for.

 

[krtek a houby]

What's all this monarchical propaganda doing on Urban 75, can't you go post on the Mail comments instead?

Go easy on the newbie, newbie

 

[klang]

House of lords not political then?

 

[Silas Loom]

The argument that there are better things on which to spend reformist zeal and energy died when Johnson prorogued Parliament.

There absolutely has to be some sort of real-time restraint on the PM, and that simply can’t be a hereditary position. And the courts act only in retrospect: they are insufficient.

Someone in the practical republicanism thread suggested a privy council of the great and the good, which makes a lot of sense as an interim solution both to the monarchy problem and the Lords problem, however thorny the selection and appointment criteria.

 

[krtek a houby]

That's a rather shallow interpretation of the points I've tried to make. I can only assume you haven't read them or don't understand them.
I abhor right wing politics and the Daily Mail.
All I'm really saying is be careful what you wish for.

Plenty of countries do just fine without monarchies.