A Question To British Posters And British Commonwealth Nation Posters

[♥ Lily ♥]

Do you think the U.K. should cease being a monarchy? Do you think we should become a republic?

I'm interested in the views of the British posters on TA. (Neon Knight, Catkin, Graham, Longbowman, Loki, etc.)

What do British Commonwealth citizens on TA think? (E.g; posters in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Caribbean Islands, etc.) Would you rather keep Queen Elizabeth II as the head of your countries - or would you prefer to become a republic?

[GreentheViper]

I'd like to keep the Queen as head of state.

[Duffmannn]

Bumpy

[PaleoEuropean]

Although I am British only by ethnic decent and not a part of the Commonweatlh nations. I say Monarchy started to die with the magna carta went through its death through with Cromwell and died with the final end of Feudalism. A monarchy without a real functioning nobility is not a true monarchy. Although I respect the Queen and the royal family they have no real power. I would like to see Britain revert to feudalism and honor the rights of the crown and the nobility but I don't think with all the people of foreign descent that it could ever happen through democracy.

[Davystayn]

Difficult question, have erred over this before but the end of the day, looking at Presidentially suited alternatives like EU bigwigs why get rid of it?

Also Trooping the Colour, March of the Grenadier Guards etc, often brings a tear to the eye

[Davystayn]

Dp

[Creoda]

The Saxe-Coburg-Gothas should be stripped of their title and the monarchy be restored to the rightful King in Australia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_...arl_of_Loudoun

[Longbowman]

Monarchist til I die.

Primary reasoning: division of power

Once upon a time, the monarch represented everything a true conservative naturally opposes: the centralisation of power. An absolute monarch can rule with an iron fist. Of course, the stratified laws and customs of a country don't exist in a bubble, and whenever a monarch disregards the will of the people, he risks his position. This has happened often in English history, most notably with King John (hence, the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215), Charles I (culminating in his execution and Cromwell's Commonwealth), and James II (culminating in his deposition and two years thereafter the Glorious Revolution of 1690). Over the past millennium, the power of the monarch has waned and the power of parliament grew. Sometime in the years preceding the Act of Union (1707), Parliament became more powerful than the monarch (probably 1690), and sometime in the 19th century, probably under Victoria, their role was reduced to that of a figurehead.

Anyone who argues that the Queen has any real power today is either a conspiracy theorist, a profound ignoramus, or, most likely, both. And yet, we hear the same, whiny argument: it's not fair that the monarch is 'born into power.'

Let's talk about fairness in realistic terms. True, your chance of being the head of state at any one time, if you're not the Queen, has dropped because of the monarchy: specifically, from 1 in 66 million to 0 in 66 million (if you're British; if you're a Kiwi or Antiguan it's a more significant drop). Oh, no, the horror. This is like when people defend billionaires because they think one day they might be one, except it's actually considerably less likely you'd be one. You're more likely to win the lottery twice or captain the England football team. This shouldn't be about fairness and representation in the process of government, which is frankly a second order consideration. This should be about fairness in the outcome of government.

You should instinctively be distrustful of anyone who tells you they want to rule over you. You'd be suspicious of a foreigner who says it, so why not a compatriot? Politicians are inherently untrustworthy people who, by and large, seek power for power's sake. Unfortunately, we do need a government, of sorts, so we cannot dispose of them. But we can and should undermine them and make it difficult for them to wield power, at least internally. This is what's known as 'checks and balances.'

As I say, once upon a time, the monarch was the one who was getting checked and balanced, and we fought for centuries to reel them in. But now the tables are turned, and it's the Commons who need reeling in. The monarch functions well as a giant indirect check on the PM, or more specifically, their ego and perception throughout the nation. In America, France, and a hundred other countries, the Head of State is not a figurehead, and they can plaster their face on the walls, host large military parades in their honour, get bands to play for them and bask in their dual role as anthropomorphic figurehead of their nation and wielder of power. This is dangerous, and potentially extremely divisive, too - look at Trump's America, for example. On the other hand, in the UK and Canada etc, the prime minister doesn't get pride of place in parades, doesn't live in a palace (he lives in a terraced house!), is never viewed as the elder statesman of the country - he is just an empowered bureaucrat, and is thus easy to dispose of if we don't like them - no constitutional crisis required.

Removing the monarchy is a fool's errand.

[Tooting Carmen]

Monarchist til I die.

Primary reasoning: division of power

Once upon a time, the monarch represented everything a true conservative naturally opposes: the centralisation of power. An absolute monarch can rule with an iron fist. Of course, the stratified laws and customs of a country don't exist in a bubble, and whenever a monarch disregards the will of the people, he risks his position. This has happened often in English history, most notably with King John (hence, the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215), Charles I (culminating in his execution and Cromwell's Commonwealth), and James II (culminating in his deposition and two years thereafter the Glorious Revolution of 1690). Over the past millennium, the power of the monarch has waned and the power of parliament grew. Sometime in the years preceding the Act of Union (1707), Parliament became more powerful than the monarch (probably 1690), and sometime in the 19th century, probably under Victoria, their role was reduced to that of a figurehead.

Anyone who argues that the Queen has any real power today is either a conspiracy theorist, a profound ignoramus, or, most likely, both. And yet, we hear the same, whiny argument: it's not fair that the monarch is 'born into power.'

Let's talk about fairness in realistic terms. True, your chance of being the head of state at any one time, if you're not the Queen, has dropped because of the monarchy: specifically, from 1 in 66 million to 0 in 66 million (if you're British; if you're a Kiwi or Antiguan it's a more significant drop). Oh, no, the horror. This is like when people defend billionaires because they think one day they might be one, except it's actually considerably less likely you'd be one. You're more likely to win the lottery twice or captain the England football team. This shouldn't be about fairness and representation in the process of government, which is frankly a second order consideration. This should be about fairness in the outcome of government.

You should instinctively be distrustful of anyone who tells you they want to rule over you. You'd be suspicious of a foreigner who says it, so why not a compatriot? Politicians are inherently untrustworthy people who, by and large, seek power for power's sake. Unfortunately, we do need a government, of sorts, so we cannot dispose of them. But we can and should undermine them and make it difficult for them to wield power, at least internally. This is what's known as 'checks and balances.'

As I say, once upon a time, the monarch was the one who was getting checked and balanced, and we fought for centuries to reel them in. But now the tables are turned, and it's the Commons who need reeling in. The monarch functions well as a giant indirect check on the PM, or more specifically, their ego and perception throughout the nation. In America, France, and a hundred other countries, the Head of State is not a figurehead, and they can plaster their face on the walls, host large military parades in their honour, get bands to play for them and bask in their dual role as anthropomorphic figurehead of their nation and wielder of power. This is dangerous, and potentially extremely divisive, too - look at Trump's America, for example. On the other hand, in the UK and Canada etc, the prime minister doesn't get pride of place in parades, doesn't live in a palace (he lives in a terraced house!), is never viewed as the elder statesman of the country - he is just an empowered bureaucrat, and is thus easy to dispose of if we don't like them - no constitutional crisis required.

Removing the monarchy is a fool's errand.

That depends. It is true the President is far too powerful and glorified in the French and US systems, but what about Germany, where the President's role is very nominal?

[Longbowman]

That depends. It is true the President is far too powerful and glorified in the French and US systems, but what about Germany, where the President's role is very nominal?

The German president is an ineffective check against the PM's power, however - the German PM effectively has the collective de facto power and prestige of our PM and monarch, but not the collective de jure powers.

Worse, an elected president is never truly free of bias. They will invariably have connections or history to some party or another.