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?'

Friday at 8:14 PM

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