UK: Do we even need a Royal family?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

1) You are neither more or less free with or without a monarch alongside an elected body. In Germany, for example, we do not even vote for our President.
2) Cost is irrelevant. We spend a fortune on our President here, whereas I believe our royals are both wealthy and self-sufficient.
3) A monarch lends an important sense of tradition and dignity to a country.
4) A monarch is an important symbol of the nation.
5) A monarch is, at least in theory, non-partisan.
6) A monarch can be an important safeguard of a constitution or democracy.
7) A monarch is raised from birth for their job. A President has other training instead.
8) A monarch is a perfect diplomatic representative.

[Lemur]

Once nice thing about having royals, however useless they might be: It prevents the President/Prime Minister from attempting to embody the state. 'Cause the job is already taken by them royal peoples.

I'm trying to think of a quick, pithy way to explain what I mean by "embody the state," and I'm coming up blank. If you don't understand what I mean, just move on to the next post and pretend you saw nothing at all here.

[tibilicus]

I'm pretty sure the whole cost issue really isn't real.

I'm not 100% sure as I'm not Australian but isn't one of the reasons why Australians voted to keep the queen as head of state because of the cost of switching to a presidential system and after that the upkeep of a president would be even higher?

Might not be right though but that's what I gathered.

[Productivity]

I'm not 100% sure as I'm not Australian but isn't one of the reasons why Australians voted to keep the queen as head of state because of the cost of switching to a presidential system and after that the upkeep of a president would be even higher?

Might not be right though but that's what I gathered.

The reason Australia voted to keep the monarchy is because the referendum and public debate was hijacked by a devoted monarchist and put a flawed question to the people, splitting the republican vote.

Rather than doing the sensible thing of running a series of plebiscites, first asking do you want a republic (for which there is over 50% support), then sorting out the implications that would have on the constitution/government forms, the monarchist movement managed to get just a single question, asking do you want a republic with form x. This split the republican vote allowing the monarchists to win the referendum.

Cost is not a serious impost - everything costs money, contextually the cost of having a president vs. having a monarchy is souch small change that it may as well be a non-event.

[CountArach]

The reason Australia voted to keep the monarchy is because the referendum and public debate was hijacked by a devoted monarchist and put a flawed question to the people, splitting the republican vote.

Gah! Beaten to it again!

Rather than doing the sensible thing of running a series of plebiscites, first asking do you want a republic (for which there is over 50% support)

55% support was the latest poll IIRC.

[Productivity]

Gah! Beaten to it again!

55% support was the latest poll IIRC.

I was amazed you hadn't posted about that yet TBH.

If you (and anyone else interested in Australian constitutional politics) haven't seen it allready you may be interested in this.

[Kralizec]

The reason Australia voted to keep the monarchy is because the referendum and public debate was hijacked by a devoted monarchist and put a flawed question to the people, splitting the republican vote.

Just curious, what were the options?

[Papewaio]

You vote in Parliament and then the MPs choose the president... no direct election allowed. Just a President who replaces the GG... essentially the MPs choose their umpire, and the people get zero choice in the matter. No real change, so no one wanted it because it didn't change enough... why shuffle papers when bigger issues are at foot and you want bigger change.

[Strike For The South]

Now this may surprise some of you but every so often I like to make an off color joke with some off color words. If every time I did that, someone told on me to a British newspaper. Well frankly there isnt enough paper.

[tibilicus]

Now this may surprise some of you but every so often I like to make an off color joke with some off color words. If every time I did that, someone told on me to a British newspaper. Well frankly there isnt enough paper.

I think the whole out cry is over the fact is the royal family are meant to be head of states, they live in dozens of nice palace homes, there job is serving the country and that includes presenting a PC image weather they want to or not. It's in their job description.

Please read my post bellow to see my real personnel opinion on the matter before I get more posts suggesting I'm a member of the though police..

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wow, that's really Mediaeval, Lemur. Kings and queens stopped truely being embodiments of the state at the end of the Renaissance.

Personally, I'm a monarchist and I don't like the idea of a Republic, it feels somehow hollow. I can't justify that at all.

[Lemur]

Phillipvs, is it so very medieval? I live in the U.S., where the spirit of America is embodied by Tom Cruise and Mickey Mouse. And maybe Ronald McDonald. That's our royalty. Is it so very wrong to gaze wistfully on the fusty, musty House of Windsor and wish we could buy laminated tea sets instead of Entertainment Weekly? Is that so wrong?!?!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Phillipvs, is it so very medieval? I live in the U.S., where the spirit of America is embodied by Tom Cruise and Mickey Mouse. And maybe Ronald McDonald. That's our royalty. Is it so very wrong to gaze wistfully on the fusty, musty House of Windsor and wish we could buy laminated tea sets instead of Entertainment Weekly? Is that so wrong?!?!

Yes, absolutely.

[CountArach]

No. No you do not. No modern liberal Democracy does.

[Furunculus]

a monarch isn't just someone who sits on the throne in britain, they are intimately tied into 800 years of constitutional structure, and if you tear that down without serious thought as to the alternative then you risk revolution a generation down the line, and even if you do give it serious thought have you actually made anything better?

i am a monarchist because i see no better alternative from a governance standpoint, and i recognise the benefit of the ties with history.