Great Britain: Republic or Monarchy?

[Duke Malcolm]

Malcolm,

Strathclyde was not part of Scotland until the early 11th century.

The Later 11th century saw its territory split between Scotland and England.

Welsh names were still commonly recorded in southern Scotland during the 12th century (Edit:actually, probably longer, I just don't have any other examples lying around).

The last time that the charters of the kings of Scotland specifically mentioned the Welsh of the kingdom was in the 12th century (edit: it was during the reign of William the Lion so may have been in the early 13th century).

The veneration of Welsh saints continued on both sides of the Anglo-Scottish border for a long time (Edit:I'm guessing until the reformation).

I reckon William Wallace probably had a fair idea of his heritage.


Edit: P.S. I just mentioned Paul Dianno to wind up the hardcore Bruce-ites.

Sorry, I miscounted the centuries... only 1 off, though... He may have known his heritage, but was still Scottish

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Malcolm, come on, ruled by the king of Scots, yes, Scottish, as in Gaelic, quite possibly not, or only partially so.

I know that you know this but...
Scotland seems to have been, at that time, a mix of ethnically Welsh, Scandinavian, Flemish, French, Gaelic (I could put Irish for that but, suffice to say, the medieval Gael was fully aware of his cultural ties to Ireland), English and the Gaelic/Pictish mixed population(which seems to have been overwhelmingly Gaelicised by this point, I did have a reference to a manuscript that refers to the last Pictish speakers in an area but I think it was before this time. It was also about rights to land between some Scots and some French clergy, the Scots seemed to have been saying "well, this land was inhabited by our forefathers who were Pictish until quite recently, so the land should be ours").

so, um, yeah, Scottish as in from the geographical area of the Kingdom of Scotland. Scottish as in from one of the many different ethnic groups in the kingdom. Scottish as in Gaelic? maybe, possibly not.

[Slyspy]

You took it as a personal attack? LOL- Look not at all. We also live under fictions. The state is forcing nationality here, in fact many of us specially the ones living in the "interior" (outside the litoral -Buenos Aires, Santa Fe, Cordoba, La Pampa) don't give a damn about nationality right now. That's what an state is a fiction it tries to represent a thing that in reality doesn't exists, and if it existed then it doesn't need of an state. The same goes to laughable and archaic methods such as keeping parasites under the protection of traditions, there's no difference.

Side note: When was the last time you came here?
Another note: I'm not nationalist at all so don't bother in the future trying to attack my national feelings because there isn't any.

Not at all. I merely found your notions of a "true nation" amusing. A true nation is one were everyone just sort of gets along? A true nation is one in which backwoods peasants grubbing out a living are barely aware of who their rulers are? I have never believed you to be nationalistic, but you should not be so eager to apply the example of Argentinia's somewhat wobbly post-junta central government to Britain's long established system of government.

[Soulforged]

Not at all. I merely found your notions of a "true nation" amusing. A true nation is one were everyone just sort of gets along? A true nation is one in which backwoods peasants grubbing out a living are barely aware of who their rulers are? I have never believed you to be nationalistic, but you should not be so eager to apply the example of Argentinia's somewhat wobbly post-junta central government to Britain's long established system of government.

I never used Argentina as an example, even less the Junta (just for the record the Junta does not exits since the end of 1982 and aside for the destribution of powers there's no difference between Argentina's state and Britain's).... My notions are amusing? LOL- Do you think that a true nation needs of cohercion to keep union? To me that is ridiculous, it's the very founding of authoritarian and "nationalistic" behavior. If the people feel like each other belong to a single body then there's no need to force it, is they do not then there's no need to keep it united, it's so easy to see that I really don't know what you find so amusing. But keep on your notion, perhaps you at least understand how bad it's to have in your "nation" people that should break their asses to gain their meal of the day, while others just because they are "special" can live their lives and enjoy without doing nothing.

[Slyspy]

I never used Argentina as an example, even less the Junta (just for the record the Junta does not exits since the end of 1982 and aside for the destribution of powers there's no difference between Argentina's state and Britain's).... My notions are amusing? LOL- Do you think that a true nation needs of cohercion to keep union? To me that is ridiculous, it's the very founding of authoritarian and "nationalistic" behavior. If the people feel like each other belong to a single body then there's no need to force it, is they do not then there's no need to keep it united, it's so easy to see that I really don't know what you find so amusing. But keep on your notion, perhaps you at least understand how bad it's to have in your "nation" people that should break their asses to gain their meal of the day, while others just because they are "special" can live their lives and enjoy without doing nothing.

I'm sorry but your reference to the policies of your current national government in your previous post clearly indicates that you were using Argentina as example of enforcing national identity. Neither was I using the Junta as an example of anything, I was merely using its demise has a historical starting point of modern Argentina (hence the term post-Junta). My suggestion was that while a democracy of twenty-odd years may feel the need to enforce some kind of national identity, a democracy of hundreds of years already has that identity. To remove the monarchy would be to remove part of that identity. Maybe your experience of government is different to mine: I have never been oppressed nor coerced by the Royal Family, for example. Neither do the majority of Britons have to "break their asses"* to feed their family. The special status and privileges given to the monarch etc should be judged in comparison to the rest of British society. We are not the Russian peasants of old.

* most of us do not even own a donkey, let alone a herd of asses.

[Soulforged]

I'm sorry but your reference to the policies of your current national government in your previous post clearly indicates that you were using Argentina as example of enforcing national identity.

Show me one.

Neither was I using the Junta as an example of anything, I was merely using its demise has a historical starting point of modern Argentina (hence the term post-Junta). My suggestion was that while a democracy of twenty-odd years may feel the need to enforce some kind of national identity, a democracy of hundreds of years already has that identity.

What's that identity the people or plastic figures?

To remove the monarchy would be to remove part of that identity.

Why don't you prove it? The identity is always in the people. No one should be forced to accept a fantasy in order to keep certain idea of nationality alive.

Maybe your experience of government is different to mine: I have never been oppressed nor coerced by the Royal Family, for example.

Neither I by the Junta, or by this government. But you take the term opressed in an strict form, I'm taking it like you should, in an ample form, the state is there to opress, nothing else, and it even tries to mantain parasites in your society. However if you see it with good eyes, then go ahead, for me a society with social differences is not worth my job of everyday, even worst if those difference are mantained in such faceless manner.

Neither do the majority of Britons have to "break their asses"* to feed their family.

There's no "producers" in your economy? Operatives of factories, constructors, etc...

The special status and privileges given to the monarch etc should be judged in comparison to the rest of British society. We are not the Russian peasants of old.

Well that's not true, without getting more profound on the subject, we can see that they're above the normal citizen, separating classes of man.

* most of us do not even own a donkey, let alone a herd of asses.

You'll do well to explain national expressions to me...

I've a question for you if you want to answer it: If the prince steals a car and then sells it, is he punished for thievery and blackmail? What will happen to the guy who lives in the slums (if any)? I'm asking in both aspects formal (what should happen) and real (what actually happens).

[InsaneApache]

@ Soulforged you have some peculiar ideas about how Her Majesty is viewed in the UK. To say that she is special is true, but not the way you think it is. I have more power than she does. She is merely a figurehead. Around about 350 years ago we decided that we had enough of the King and his pushy ways so we arrested him, tried him and then cut his head off and stuck it on a spike as a warning not to mess with democracy.

To say that I am oppressed because we have a Queen is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The reason we decided to allow the monarchy to continue was because the English didn't feel happy with a republic. We don't trust politicians. We regard them as a necessary evil. We concluded hundreds of years ago that a President wasn't such a hot idea after all.....Cromwell showed us that....this is also why the armed forces in the UK have traditionally been minute compared to the general population....so that another coup de'tat would not be possible...ala Cromwell.

Although I personally am not a royalist, I do understand the reasoning behind it. It prevents idiots like Bliar getting hold of all the levers of power with the checks and balances built in. I mean, c'mon President Bliar...it sends shivers down my back. Given the alternatives we plumped to go for continuity and the full panoply of Regina. It's worked spectacularly well for the last four centuries, so the old adage applies...if it aint broke don't fix it.

I'm sure that's as clear as mud.

[Prodigal]

The Kings of the Scots of Dalriada had a claim on the throne of the Picts, wince King Kenneth MacAlpin being the Grandson of a Pictish King. He just enforced his claim by eradicating the Pictish Army.

But considering the picts followed a matrilinear line, being the grandson seems a bit dodgy. Also the fact that the only historical line of the pictsh kings was written by people that you could consider as being enemies of the picts means its not possible to say how accurate it is. Personally I think that Oengus, by uniting picts & scotii really was the one to blur the lines between the two distinct groups.

The people of South-West modern Scotland were British people, i.e. almost Welsh. In Wallace's time this land had been part of Scotland for almost 3 centuries, he was Scottish, I assure you

Yeah, but its far to good a wind up to let pass.

I don't quite see your point, no...
King James VI & I was directly descended from King Kenneth MacAlpin, who was from both Pictish and Scottish stock.

Exactly! You see! The scottish-pict king's, (and considering the pictish language has been lost would kind of lean toward the MORE scot than pict), invited down south to rule over a bunch of frenchified germans. (I appreciate the recet DNA tests that have been done don't support the genocide theory of invasion, but what the hell)

[Slyspy]

You took it as a personal attack? LOL- Look not at all. We also live under fictions. The state is forcing nationality here, in fact many of us specially the ones living in the "interior" (outside the litoral -Buenos Aires, Santa Fe, Cordoba, La Pampa) don't give a damn about nationality right now. That's what an state is a fiction it tries to represent a thing that in reality doesn't exists, and if it existed then it doesn't need of an state. The same goes to laughable and archaic methods such as keeping parasites under the protection of traditions, there's no difference.

Side note: When was the last time you came here?
Another note: I'm not nationalist at all so don't bother in the future trying to attack my national feelings because there isn't any.

There. You create a reference to your government and suggest that it is attempting to coerce people, presumably through propaganda, to assume the government's idea of national identity.

Natonial identity is formed by the things which make you different, by the deeds of your ancestors and the cultural aspects of your society. The people, despite being the powerhouse of any nation, are just a mass. They help create that identity, but they as a body are not its totality. Also we differ I suspect in our opinion of leadership. I believe that leaders are necessary to maintain society and that figureheads are just as important to the whole.

I repeat that I have never felt oppressed by the British monarchy. Occassionally by my democratically elected government when I have considered their legislation foolish and unjust (and who is to say I am correct), but never by the monarchy.

Of course we have "producers" in this country, but you statement suggested a subsistence level of income which simply does not exist here, hence my comment about Russian peasants.

In answer to your last question about whether a prince would be arrested and prosecuted for a criminal act I would say yes. Legally the authorities would be obliged to: He would have no more immunity than the average citizen (though no doubt he would have superior lawyers). Any cover-up would be illegal and the political fall out from a bungled cover-up would likely out-weigh the fall out from a trial. Besides which I suspect that the Queen would sacrifice just about anything, including a wayward grandson, to keep the monarchy afloat.

[Tsavong]

The Monarchy is not the biggest thing with spends peoples tax involving the goverment of Britan. percenly i thinink they should be charged with looking after long term futire of the cuntry, 50 years pluss, poleticions will naver do that there too short turm.

by the way Soulforged are you from/a sitisan of Britan?

[TheSilverKnight]

The monarchy is a purely harmless tradition of Great Britain, and they are representatives of the nation's history and tradition of being a monarchy.
They may cost a little bit of money, but what doesn't? And would you rather prefer a government ruled entirely by Blair and we got rid of all of our historical institutions involving the monarchy?

Sure, the monarchy isn't perfect, and there are members who screw up, but does that mean the entire monarchy is at fault? No. It is the fault of those who screw up. It's not this big deal "OMG ONE OF THE MEMBERS IS A TOTAL BUGGER, LET'S GET RID OF THE MONARCHY!!! REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!111OEN". No. That does not solve anything, and it only creates further anarchy because of the lack of a central figurehead to be a guiding light for the nation and the perfect representative to the world of that nation.

In short, I am a Royalist, and I shall continue to be a loyal subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth until the day that I perish from this Earth. And I can not see how anyone can compare regimes with other regimes, when the differences between a Republic and a Monarchy are so different that they are incomparable. A consitutional monarchy as Great Britain has right now, and as a few select countries in Europe have, which have a monarch as the head of state, is the perfect form of government for those nations, and should be not be changed because it is a wonderful representative of the history of those nations.

And to those who think Bruce Dickinson should be monarch... ...he's good, but we could probly find someone just as good as Bruce, or perhaps even better.

[Slyspy]

The Monarchy is not the biggest thing with spends peoples tax involving the goverment of Britan. percenly i thinink they should be charged with looking after long term futire of the cuntry, 50 years pluss, poleticions will naver do that there too short turm.

by the way Soulforged are you from/a sitisan of Britan?

He is from Argentinia, as it says under his avatar.

Although it doesn't usually bother me I do hope that you either
a) have English as a second language (in which case continue the lessons) or
b) have a disability such as dyslexia, blindness or no fingers (in which case good on you for not letting it get to you).
If neither apply then please post coherently (though Org tradition does state that the actual content of a post need not make sense)!

[Louis VI the Fat]

I bet Soulforged's English beats most Englishmen's Spanish, or any second language, by a huge margin...

[Duke Malcolm]

No Briton let alone Englishman has a second language...

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Are all Englishmen American?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

What do you call a person who speaks more than two languages?
Polyglot.
What do you call a person who speaks two languages?
Bilingual
What do you call a person who speaks only one language?
American.

.

[TheSilverKnight]

No Briton let alone Englishman has a second language...

Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure last time I checked I could speak Spanish.

[Duke Malcolm]

I know, it is mere generalisation that Britons cannot speak foreign, but is true for most people...

[TheSilverKnight]

I know, it is mere generalisation that Britons cannot speak foreign, but is true for most people...

True, I see your point then, friend Thanks for clearing that up for me

[Slyspy]

Oh Soulforged's English is certainly better than my Spanish, since I don't know any. But then of course my pedantry about the abuse of English was not directed at Soulforged but at Zerg.

[Soulforged]

@ Soulforged you have some peculiar ideas about how Her Majesty is viewed in the UK. To say that she is special is true, but not the way you think it is. I have more power than she does. She is merely a figurehead. Around about 350 years ago we decided that we had enough of the King and his pushy ways so we arrested him, tried him and then cut his head off and stuck it on a spike as a warning not to mess with democracy.

Actually no. I know some of your history. The problem here is general, but I think that in monarchy's cases it's formally even worse.

To say that I am oppressed because we have a Queen is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The reason we decided to allow the monarchy to continue was because the English didn't feel happy with a republic. We don't trust politicians. We regard them as a necessary evil. We concluded hundreds of years ago that a President wasn't such a hot idea after all...

I know all that, but you seem to not understand what oppressed really means in my statements.

Although I personally am not a royalist, I do understand the reasoning behind it. It prevents idiots like Bliar getting hold of all the levers of power with the checks and balances built in. I mean, c'mon President Bliar...it sends shivers down my back. Given the alternatives we plumped to go for continuity and the full panoply of Regina. It's worked spectacularly well for the last four centuries, so the old adage applies...if it aint broke don't fix it.

If they don't have any power, then how they actually balance the power inside the government. I think that the Parlament should be enough, if not, then there's the people.

I'm sure that's as clear as mud.

It was always clears as mud. But some people still defend social unequality when it tends to certain purposes. Unequality is never desired, at least by me.

There. You create a reference to your government and suggest that it is attempting to coerce people, presumably through propaganda, to assume the government's idea of national identity.

Agree, all states do that, is a way to preserve it's existence. It could be through propaganda, as you say, or through plastic figures.

Natonial identity is formed by the things which make you different, by the deeds of your ancestors and the cultural aspects of your society. The people, despite being the powerhouse of any nation, are just a mass. They help create that identity, but they as a body are not its totality. Also we differ I suspect in our opinion of leadership. I believe that leaders are necessary to maintain society and that figureheads are just as important to the whole.

Leaders where important when people didn't knew that they could do things by themselves and that they've rights. But if you think they're important, again I'm not going to disuade you (well actually I want to change your minds, maybe a subliminal image could work ), but do you consider that those plastic figures, of protocol and pomposity are leaders? Your leaders? About the mass concept. That's again trying to separete and give different standars to equal people. The mass is not less because it's the mass, you're as representative of your nation as I'm of mine, you don't need some traditional figure to represent you, nor to command you, nor to establish your identity or mantain it.

I repeat that I have never felt oppressed by the British monarchy. Occassionally by my democratically elected government when I have considered their legislation foolish and unjust (and who is to say I am correct), but never by the monarchy.

Oppression not only means "unjust" laws or repression of movements. It means any kind of law for taht matter, any kind of alienation of your power. Of course you'll not agree with me on this. But the monarchy, though only a mere idealism, has an extra formal charge that in your custom sais, "They represent us, and they're above the common "mass"".

Of course we have "producers" in this country, but you statement suggested a subsistence level of income which simply does not exist here, hence my comment about Russian peasants.

Perhaps I must clearify what "break your ass" means. It's mostly working for your employeer, for the capitalist, or for the state, while you're doing physical work and producing something, some other is just well....thinking.

In answer to your last question about whether a prince would be arrested and prosecuted for a criminal act I would say yes. Legally the authorities would be obliged to: He would have no more immunity than the average citizen (though no doubt he would have superior lawyers). Any cover-up would be illegal and the political fall out from a bungled cover-up would likely out-weigh the fall out from a trial. Besides which I suspect that the Queen would sacrifice just about anything, including a wayward grandson, to keep the monarchy afloat.

But what's the difference with the guy of the slums then? What real differences there are between both procedures. How do you feel about the treatment that both should be granted?

I bet Soulforged's English beats most Englishmen's Spanish, or any second language, by a huge margin...

Thanks Louis, but I think you're overestimating me.
I'm looking forward to learn french...Well actually I'll be forced anyway, because the university of laws is forcing the students to learn "france" for the Civile Droit and all that.

[InsaneApache]

If they don't have any power, then how they actually balance the power inside the government. I think that the Parlament should be enough, if not, then there's the people.

Ok I'll try to explain how it works in a paragraph.

Her Majesty is the nominal head of the Government. All governments in the UK are called Her Majesties Government. This means that in theory the government of the day is responsible to the Queen.

However in actuality the Government is answerable to Parliament. This little question of who the government of the day is responsible to was address in the English Civil War. (referred in my previous post to Cromwell)

Parliament is elected by the people (known as the electorate). Everybody in the UK over the age of 18 years old automatically gets the vote. There are a few exceptions to this, but the one that we are concerned with here is the Queen. HM does not get the vote. She is barred from showing political partiality and in essence her role is reduced to that of a signitory, in other words her power extends to signing acts of Parliament. (Royal Assent)

To say that the Queen has privilege is true. But no more than any other head of state. I wonder if el-Presidentes' son would suffer the full rigeurs of the law if they got caught snorting charlie or bonking a prostitute? Probably not.

[Louis VI the Fat]

But then of course my pedantry about the abuse of English was not directed at Soulforged but at Zerg.

Oops. I only get it now.

I suppose this shows that it's my English reading skills that leave a lot to be desired...

Sorry man.

[Spetulhu]

To say that the Queen has privilege is true. But no more than any other head of state. I wonder if el-Presidentes' son would suffer the full rigeurs of the law if they got caught snorting charlie or bonking a prostitute? Probably not.

That's a different thing, isn't it? The Queen can't be prosecuted at all if I understood it right.

[InsaneApache]

That's a different thing, isn't it? The Queen can't be prosecuted at all if I understood it right.

It is understood in English common law that no one is above the law. It started in 1215 iirc.

[Spetulhu]

It is understood in English common law that no one is above the law. It started in 1215 iirc.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page503.asp

Given the historical development of the Sovereign as the 'Fount of Justice', civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person.

Acts of Parliament do not apply to The Queen in her personal capacity unless they are expressly stated to do so.

However, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law.

Under the Crown Proceedings Act (1947), civil proceedings can be taken against the Crown in its public capacity. This usually means proceedings against government departments and agencies, as the elected Government governs in The Queen's name.

[Soulforged]

Parliament is elected by the people (known as the electorate). Everybody in the UK over the age of 18 years old automatically gets the vote. There are a few exceptions to this, but the one that we are concerned with here is the Queen. HM does not get the vote. She is barred from showing political partiality and in essence her role is reduced to that of a signitory, in other words her power extends to signing acts of Parliament. (Royal Assent)

So the Queen or the King has actually some power, just procesal, but it's power nontheless. Tough you can't deny that you don't need the Queen as an impartial element when the Palamentary system could function with not royalty at all, I think that the model of Bismark (or is it Bismarch?) functioned that way. The system of limitations and "levers" of the Parlamentary system are good as they're you don't need another subject.

To say that the Queen has privilege is true. But no more than any other head of state. I wonder if el-Presidentes' son would suffer the full rigeurs of the law if they got caught snorting charlie or bonking a prostitute? Probably not.

You still don't understand me. You're right, in fact it has happened all the time here, with the capitalists too and with the famous. But the difference is that ideal burden that the royalty has. Formally the president is not more than the Prime Minister, he only has more functions, but he's still elected, the Queen however...

[Tsavong]

i am b) have a disability such as dyslexia, blindness or no fingers (in which case good on you for not letting it get to you). got a free PC of goverment :p long live the queen etc

i asked about where he was from because he asked about producers in are economy, and of course we are manly a service driven economy.

i try my best to keep my spellings good using MS words spell check

Soulforged why dose it bother you wather we have a queen or not she is a long way from you?

He is from Argentinia, as it says under his avatar.

Although it doesn't usually bother me I do hope that you either
a) have English as a second language (in which case continue the lessons) or
b) have a disability such as dyslexia, blindness or no fingers (in which case good on you for not letting it get to you).
If neither apply then please post coherently (though Org tradition does state that the actual content of a post need not make sense)!

[Soulforged]

Given the historical development of the Sovereign as the 'Fount of Justice', civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person.

Well in fact you can't do the same to the president, a congresist or a judge here without them being officially "fired" first. In our long tradition in the west for praising to idealism and formalism, we dress certain figures with fictional immunity.

Acts of Parliament do not apply to The Queen in her personal capacity unless they are expressly stated to do so.

Well that corrects my views.

Soulforged why dose it bother you wather we have a queen or not she is a long way from you?

I don't have to live in your country to know that the "royalty" is not representative of all the people or your nationality. This is a political discussion, I thought that my opinions were apreciated, wheter I'm from Argentina or Sudafrica. Also every case of unequality worries me, not for me properly speaking, but for the situation of the human kind as a whole.

[lars573]

I don't have to live in your country to know that the "royalty" is not representative of all the people or your nationality. This is a political discussion, I thought that my opinions were apreciated, wheter I'm from Argentina or Sudafrica. Also every case of unequality worries me, not for me properly speaking, but for the situation of the human kind as a whole.

I can see how on the outside looking in that our system (UK +common nations that still have the Queen as our sovergin, there are 15) which grants a family of German extraction with questionable genetic variation in public office for life seems strange. You live in a nation where almost no for life public positions (Argentinas system of governemtn is based of the US one am I right?) exist. Let alone a head of state that is given their position by an accedent of birth.
So let me ask you this, does your president represent all the people all the time? I doubt you can say yes. For those of us who live in nations with Kings/Emperors/Princes/Dukes in charge is just another form of government. The un-elected nature of the Queen doesn't bother me. I like living in a monarchy, it's practically unique these days. Besides never electing a head of state or the upper chamber of parliment means that there is no money spent electing them. Really even if they did do away with the monarchy the operation of the govenment wouldn't change much. The Queen is replaced by a president (who has the same exact powers as the Queen but maybe more willing to use them) the lords by a senate like house. But all the executive power stays with the PM. So in the end what is the point of getting rid of the Windsors?

[Soulforged]

I can see how on the outside looking in that our system (UK +common nations that still have the Queen as our sovergin, there are 15) which grants a family of German extraction with questionable genetic variation in public office for life seems strange. You live in a nation where almost no for life public positions (Argentinas system of governemtn is based of the US one am I right?) exist. Let alone a head of state that is given their position by an accedent of birth.

The only ones with theoretical temporally indeterminated occupation are the judges (wich is done to ensure impartiality).

So let me ask you this, does your president represent all the people all the time?

No.

For those of us who live in nations with Kings/Emperors/Princes/Dukes in charge is just another form of government. The un-elected nature of the Queen doesn't bother me.

I'm discussing the ideal burden of it. A man or woman above all others, by the power of God or blood. Now if the consecuences of a procedimental democracy as we live today and those of the monarchy are unwanted, then yes I don't like both.

Besides never electing a head of state or the upper chamber of parliment means that there is no money spent electing them.

Well that's truth. In the "democracy" in wich we live it will be the same to elect a head of state, or even a whole parliament by randomness as by voting.

Really even if they did do away with the monarchy the operation of the govenment wouldn't change much. The Queen is replaced by a president (who has the same exact powers as the Queen but maybe more willing to use them) the lords by a senate like house.

The Queen has the same executory powers of a president? In wich way you say this?

So in the end what is the point of getting rid of the Windsors?

IMO an act of evolution.