Justifications for the abolition of the Monarchy in the UK

[Kevbad the Bad]

I always thought letting one of the corgis do the job would be a nice concession to the traditionalists.

Yeah, but seeing as corgis are mammals there is just the outside possibility that it might intervene in the political process. Unlikely, to be sure. Whereas a cauliflower can't really do very much.

 

[Chz]

Doesn't really make sense to me. The Prime Minister and cabinet have executive power in this country. We're constantly told that the Queen doesn't actually have any political power (though the truth is she wields it in private). It would just mean getting rid of a couple of ceremonies. The other countries where she's head of state but doesn't turn up on a regular basis manage fine without having her about.

And scrapping the Queen's speech and a couple of other silly traditions would not result in 'anarchy'.

It's not whether there is true power involved or not. The Laws say there must be a Head of State (the cauliflower idea is intriguing) involved in hundreds of little ways, and most of these are indeed devolved to people other than Queenie herself. But they still operate with the power of the Head of State. To eliminate this is to re-write a good chunk of all the legislation that exists. If you're content with keeping a Head of State and making it a llama or something like that, it's a lot easier.

 

[maomao]

It's not whether there is true power involved or not. The Laws say there must be a Head of State (the cauliflower idea is intriguing) involved in hundreds of little ways, and most of these are indeed devolved to people other than Queenie herself. But they still operate with the power of the Head of State. To eliminate this is to re-write a good chunk of all the legislation that exists. If you're content with keeping a Head of State and making it a llama or something like that, it's a lot easier.

For some reason I thought you were Canadian:

Governor General of Canada - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pay 'em less and get rid of the stupid clothes. It would hardly need a rewrite; just a quick find and replace.

 

[Chz]

For some reason I thought you were Canadian:

Governor General of Canada - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pay 'em less and get rid of the stupid clothes. It would hardly need a rewrite; just a quick find and replace.

Then you have a Head of State. A Governor General in Commonwealth parlance is a stand-in for the Monarch and operates with all her power. It is a proxy Head of State.
And yeah, I still have a Canadian passport. British one is just too expensive.

 

[maomao]

Then you have a Head of State. A Governor General in Commonwealth parlance is a stand-in for the Monarch and operates with all her power. It is a proxy Head of State.

Yes but literally of the rubber stamping variety. Genuinely no political power.

 

[Chz]

The post I was originally responding to was:

I've got an idea. Let's get rid of the royal family and not have any head of state at all. Why don't they ever give that option in their opinion polls?

And I've stated why that's a pain in the neck to do. What you're doing is trying to bend the definition of it - the power has to exist somewhere. By law, that power rests with the Head of State, currently a Monarch. Changing that to a Eurovision-style elected leader, llama, or cauliflower isn't that difficult to do. What's difficult to do in the way the law is written is to remove that power. You can have someone who's supposed to rubber-stamp everything as they're told, but as the Australians well know the power still exists and can be wielded in unexpected ways. To eliminate that power and let the PM do as they choose is a massive constitutional undertaking.

 

[Pickman's model]

Just chop their heads off and then you can debate what to do with the bodies

 

[Chz]

Just chop their heads off and then you can debate what to do with the bodies

Which is a perfectly acceptable way of going about it. However, the last time it was tried we ended up with a tyrant that wasn't an improvement. What do we do to stop it happening again?

 

[Pickman's model]

Which is a perfectly acceptable way of going about it. However, the last time it was tried we ended up with a tyrant that wasn't an improvement. What do we do to stop it happening again?

I think we can be confident Cromwell will not try his hand again

 

[elbows]

Buckingham Palace banned ethnic minorities from office roles, papers reveal

Exclusive: Documents also shed light on Queen’s ongoing exemption from race and sex discrimination laws

www.theguardian.com

Part of quite a long series of Guardian efforts to explore all the ways the Queen's consent stuff has been used to shape the laws to fit royal desires.

 

[Dystopiary]

Buckingham Palace banned ethnic minorities from office roles, papers reveal

"Documents also shed light on Queen’s ongoing exemption from race and sex discrimination laws

The Queen’s courtiers banned “coloured immigrants or foreigners” from serving in clerical roles in the royal household until at least the late 1960s, according to newly discovered documents that will reignite the debate over the British royal family and race.

The papers were discovered at the National Archives as part of the Guardian’s ongoing investigation into the royal family’s use of an arcane parliamentary procedure, known as Queen’s consent, to secretly influence the content of British laws.

They reveal how in 1968, the Queen’s chief financial manager informed civil servants that “it was not, in fact, the practice to appoint coloured immigrants or foreigners” to clerical roles in the royal household, although they were permitted to work as domestic servants.

It is unclear when the practice ended."


Long past time we ended this farce and got rid.

ETA: How the hell did I miss the above post? Apols.

 

[Chilli.s]

It is unclear when the practice ended

I'll need to see some substantial proof that it has ended.