What's the monarchy for?

[morqthana]

So secret only you know about it.

OK.

Just because you haven't heard of it, that doesn't mean that nobody has.

You should not assume that everyone knows only what you know.

 

[fillyboy]

Just because you haven't heard of it, that doesn't mean that nobody has.

You should not assume that everyone knows only what you know.

You're making a fool of yourself now.

 

[pete01]

You're making a fool of yourself now.

I think hes used to it.

 

[morqthana]

You're making a fool of yourself now.

I think hes used to it.

Do you two really think that you are credible arbiters of what is and isn't foolish?

Dear God.

Someone call Dunning & Kruger - you're worthy of a footnote of your own.

 

[Odds]

Why does it have to have been "imposed upon the UK people"?

I have explained it - you simply don't agree that having unelected people as lawmakers, and an unelected head of state interfering with or blocking laws being debated in the chamber of elected lawmakers is undemocratic.

That's a similar argument used for dismissing the HoL, so i wonder what the future of our governing body would look like in your Democratic Republic.

I don't see how any amount of "explaining" is going to shift your opinion so that you are no longer in favour of unelected lawmakers and secret interference by an unelected head of state.

And why does it have to be "quantifiable"?

You persist in making an attempt to favour an elected assembly as a superior model of government but we've seen how easily this can be manipulated. Bre*it being the obvious example.

It is neither strange nor unrelated.

Of course we will never know if, or how, things would have gone differently, but a Bill was introduced which would have meant that Blair could not just have decided to go to war in Iraq - it would have to have been debated and agreed by Parliament.

The Queen refused to allow that Bill to be debated, and that was that. Blair was then able to go to war without the agreement of Parliament.

Are you trying to say Her Maj. was responsible for taking a geopolitical position on a matter of our global standing in a time of crisis?
Good for Her.

I refer you to what I said above. You either agree that unelected lawmakers and secret interference by an unelected head of state are good things, compatible with democratically elected government, or you don't.

I don't. You do.

It seems you're in a minority who want to abolish the monarchy as support is at its lowest in decades, with 40% feeling it would be worse if abolished compared to 21% better if abolished.

 

[morqthana]

That's a similar argument used for dismissing the HoL,

The "unelected lawmakers" I'm talking about is the HoL. Having a Monarchy is a democratic deficit integral to having that.

Post in thread 'What's the monarchy for?'

5 Dec 2025

How are they a corruption of the 'democratic process'?

1) They sit at the apex of a pyramid of ranks, precedences and privileges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_precedence_in_England_and_Wales

"Your Majesty" outranks "Your Royal Highness" which outranks "Your Highness" which outranks "Your Grace" which outranks "My Lord", and so on and so forth, descending through all the various tiers of Knighthoods, (diverting on the way for people like the Lord Lieutenants) until you get to the bottom layer of ordinary citizens.

Depending on which layer you're born into (or...

• morqthana

• 

so i wonder what the future of our governing body would look like in your Democratic Republic.

There are several different possibilities. Bing's AI search summary (usual pinch of salt, of course):

A few more direct links:

Why replacing the unelected House of Lords is key to the movement for fair votes

For far too many of its members, the second chamber of our Parliament is a private members’ club. The House of Lords – the UK’s revising chamber – is packed to the brim w

electoral-reform.org.uk

The House of Lords isn’t fit for purpose, here are five systems that could replace it - Politics.co.uk

Boris bunging 30 peerages to his cronies shows yet again why the House of Lords isn’t fit for purpose. But there are better systems out there. Here are five alternatives from around the world.

www.politics.co.uk

Unveiling a Blog Series: Reforming the House of Lords in the UK

Welcome to an upcoming exciting blog series that tackles the pressing issue of reforming the House of Lords in the United Kingdom. In this series, we will delve into the need for change, explore alternative options, and propose ideas for a different type of second chamber in UK politics.

democracynetwork.org.uk

The nature of any replacement system requires careful and deliberate thought. And, naturally, democratic involvement in that.

So right now, I don't know what a reformed system would look like. Nobody does.

You persist in making an attempt to favour an elected assembly as a superior model of government but we've seen how easily this can be manipulated. Bre*it being the obvious example.

That's more of an argument in favour of changing how elected assemblies work than it is one in favour of saying we shouldn't have them.

When our elected assembly was due to debate changing the law to make such manipulation harder our unelected head of state refused to allow them to do that.

Interesting to note that you think that was a good thing:

Are you trying to say Her Maj. was responsible for taking a geopolitical position on a matter of our global standing in a time of crisis?
Good for Her.

It seems you're in a minority who want to abolish the monarchy as support is at its lowest in decades, with 40% feeling it would be worse if abolished compared to 21% better if abolished.

As with many issues, there's an age bias.

https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Internal_RoyalFavourability_230831_W.pdf

One year into King Charles's reign, how do Britons feel about the monarchy? | YouGov

Most still support the institution, although younger people far less so

yougov.co.uk

I do wonder how many people voting in these polls think it's all just fancy outfits and gilded coaches, and the only real issue is the money.

I think it will inevitably happen - I just wish we could chivvy it along.

 

[pete01]

Do you two really think that you are credible arbiters of what is and isn't foolish?

Dear God.

Someone call Dunning & Kruger - you're worthy of a footnote of your own.

Give up while you're behind

 

[Odds]

The "unelected lawmakers" I'm talking about is the HoL. Having a Monarchy is a democratic deficit integral to having that.

Post in thread 'What's the monarchy for?'

5 Dec 2025

How are they a corruption of the 'democratic process'?

1) They sit at the apex of a pyramid of ranks, precedences and privileges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_precedence_in_England_and_Wales

"Your Majesty" outranks "Your Royal Highness" which outranks "Your Highness" which outranks "Your Grace" which outranks "My Lord", and so on and so forth, descending through all the various tiers of Knighthoods, (diverting on the way for people like the Lord Lieutenants) until you get to the bottom layer of ordinary citizens.

Depending on which layer you're born into (or...

• morqthana

• 

And yet corruption and inequality thrive in America as one example of your democratic republican ideal.
What makes you think getting rid of the monarchy will make our society a fairer place to live?

There are several different possibilities. Bing's AI search summary (usual pinch of salt, of course):

View attachment 401781


The nature of any replacement system requires careful and deliberate thought. And, naturally, democratic involvement in that.

So right now, I don't know what a reformed system would look like. Nobody does.

But history tells us the only way a monarchy will be abolished is through violent revolution.

That's more of an argument in favour of changing how elected assemblies work than it is one in favour of saying we shouldn't have them.

When our elected assembly was due to debate changing the law to make such manipulation harder our unelected head of state refused to allow them to do that.

Interesting to note that you think that was a good thing:

Once again you advocate the casting of votes from so many people who do not understand the issues, cannot be bothered to understand the issues and don't care one way or another. This is how democracy 'works'. What percentage of the electorate bothered to turn out at the last GE? Exactly.

As with many issues, there's an age bias.

https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Internal_RoyalFavourability_230831_W.pdf

One year into King Charles's reign, how do Britons feel about the monarchy? | YouGov

Most still support the institution, although younger people far less so

yougov.co.uk

I do wonder how many people voting in these polls think it's all just fancy outfits and gilded coaches, and the only real issue is the money.

I think it will inevitably happen - I just wish we could chivvy it along.

Money is the issue most people focus one, is why.

 

[morqthana]

And yet corruption and inequality thrive in America as one example of your democratic republican ideal.
What makes you think getting rid of the monarchy will make our society a fairer place to live?

What was it Churchill said about democracy?

But history tells us the only way a monarchy will be abolished is through violent revolution.

It doesn't, actually.

Once again you advocate the casting of votes from so many people who do not understand the issues, cannot be bothered to understand the issues and don't care one way or another. This is how democracy 'works'. What percentage of the electorate bothered to turn out at the last GE? Exactly.

Apoligies - I'll stop trying to discuss it with you - I hadn't realised you were opposed to the whole idea of any democracy. That you would make that comment regarding an unelected head of state forbidding an elected legislature from debating something shows that as well as having no respect for the electorate you have none for the idea of an elected legislature.

 

[Odds]

What was it Churchill said about democracy?

It was better than Fascism...which is where the country will be if it doesn't wake up soon.

Apoligies - I'll stop trying to discuss it with you - I hadn't realised you were opposed to the whole idea of any democracy. That you would make that comment regarding an unelected head of state forbidding an elected legislature from debating something shows that as well as having no respect for the electorate you have none for the idea of an elected legislature.

I'm not opposed to the idea, just pointing out how it 'works' in practice when the concept becomes debased to the point of light entertainment on the telly tubes.

 

[Notch7]

Once again you advocate the casting of votes from so many people who do not understand the issues, cannot be bothered to understand the issues and don't care one way or another. This is how democracy 'works'. What percentage of the electorate bothered to turn out at the last GE? Exactly.

Democracy requires an informed electorate……..

 

[morqthana]

Sadly one can't vote out an incompetent electorate.

 

[Notch7]

That's a similar argument used for dismissing the HoL, so i wonder what the future of our governing body would look like in your Democratic Republic.

I’m not a huge fan of the monarchy because they maintain Elitism and privilege, however I when I look at Presidential Republican system they don’t seem very clever.

Although it makes no logical sense, I think that the monarchy being head of state makes the executive answerable to a higher authority…even though I realise it’s never exercised.

What is worrying is we had Boris Johnson trying to break democracy and our lovely right wing media trying to go after Supreme Court judges……what the hell would a Reform govt do (it would try and put the executive above the court)

 

[morqthana]

Although it makes no logical sense, I think that the monarchy being head of state makes the executive answerable to a higher authority…even though I realise it’s never exercised.

The problem is that it is "exercised", but only on the "advice" of the monarch's Prime Minister. The powers are very real - it really is the monarch who dissolves Parliament. It's been a while since one did it on their own initiative, though, it's one of those unwritten rules that they only do it when requested by the PM. Theoretically though....

Although there are some loonies calling for the real HM to do it for real, so deranged is their hatred of Labour & Starmer.

But the fact that this very real power (it's the only way that Parliament can legally be dissolved if it doesn't time out after 5 years), and other powers, are only ever exercised at the request of the PM doesn't make them less dangerous, it just shifts the practical exercise of the powers from the monarch to the PM. And as we saw with BJ's "advice" to prorogue Parliament, that means there are no checks on the exercise of those powers other than concerned people taking the government to court. The role of head of state which is seen in other countries of protecting the constitution is absent here - it's as if HoS and PM are rolled into one and there are no formal protections.

What is worrying is we had Boris Johnson trying to break democracy and our lovely right wing media trying to go after Supreme Court judges……what the hell would a Reform govt do (it would try and put the executive above the court)

The Tories toyed with the idea, but in the end shied away.

Alex Schwartz: Recent Attempts to Curb Judicial Power in the United Kingdom

The era of Conservative Party government from 2015–2024 was one of great constitutional turmoil in the United Kingdom. In addition to (and partly because of) the controversies surrounding the UK’s …

ukconstitutionallaw.org

 

[Odds]

Yes, it really is the monarch who dissolves Parliament as the United Kingdom is still a constitutional monarchy - it remains His Majesties government, HM Armed Forces, HM tax...The King remains at the head of a triumverate of monarchy, Lords and Commoners which works well enough, for the most part. If you want to address the disparity in wealth, perhaps you should consider those corporations acting outside the law, circumventing His Majesties tax collectors who keep their profits offshore for themselves.