• Looking for a smarter way to manage your heating this winter? We’ve been testing the new Aqara Radiator Thermostat W600 to see how quiet, accurate and easy it is to use around the home. Click here read our review.

What's the monarchy for?

morqthana said:
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 appointed to by greasing palms or helping politicians in various ways) you end up having disproportionate influence, or actual unelected legislative power.

Traditionally, the British nobility rank directly below the British royal family. In the modern era, this ranking is more of a formally recognised social dignity, rather than something conveying practical authority; however, through bodies such as the House of Lords, the nature of some offices in the Royal Household, and British property law, the British nobility retain some aspects of political and legal power.

Did you know that there are only two countries in the world which reserve seats in their legislatures for unelected representatives of the state religion?

Iran and the UK.


2) They secretly and privately influence our "democratically elected" governments to act in their own personal interests.

theconversation.com

The queen’s gambit — new evidence shows how Her Majesty wields influence on legislation

New documents expose a chink in the queen’s armour of secrecy.
theconversation.com theconversation.com

Government documents that “relate to” communications with the sovereign or the next two persons in line to the throne, as well as palace officials acting on their behalf, are subject to an absolute exemption from release under freedom of information or by government archives.

3) Governments seeking to impose their will on our democratically elected representatives in Parliament will use the same out-of-band channels to get the monarch to act in their own partisan interests.


And I'm sure we all remember this:

2019 United Kingdom prorogation controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
My point was the original democratic process was exclusively aristocratic and has since become diluted to the point where anyone can vote on such spurious reasons like "they make me smile" or they're a "man of the people", regardless of his background suggesting he's nothing of the sort. More young people than ever simply refuse to vote because "politicians can't be trusted".

The monarchy are constitutionally restrained from interference in the election but it doesn't mean they don't have an opinion. Charles was entitled to voice his opinion as Prince of Wales but respects the protocol of not doing so as king. By and large the system works well enough that a free and fair election is held in this country without Royal interference which certainly couldn't be said to happen before the Civil War.

Taking away the monarchy would leave a bipartisan system vulnerable to the political mandate of whoever gets in power - and America is providing a salutary reminder how a presidential arrangement can become corrupted if the parliamentary system is too weak to provide robust opposition.
 
Give thousands of illigal immigrants free money and board= gooooddd

Give one very nice historical family that make britain great free money (which basically gets made back) = baaaddddd
 
pete01 said:
Yes me too I just thought ten years was a reasonable time frame? You up for it?
Click to expand...
No, that would be stupid, right now the opinion polls have a slight preference for the monarchy, mostly in older people as younger groups are more sceptical of them.

If trends continue they'll drop below 50% approval by 2035, but that's different to saying 50% want to get rid of them. And even if the nation did want to get rid it'll take a while for it to happen.

For now we should be looking at reducing some of the more absurd priveliges that the monarchy has. Effectively abolishing their power piecemeal.
 
pete01 said:
About what
Click to expand...

In this case about the Royal Family. You think they're great, and I don't. What "bothers" me is not that difference of opinion - what I didn't like was you and Highway Man saying that I didn't genuinely disagree and that I posted my criticism of them just for the sake of arguing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ebee
Posted on another forum ---- interesting or what ?
Replies
2
Views
2K
ebee
ebee
Back
Top