Great Britain: Republic or Monarchy?

[Soulforged]

Great Britain is not a monarchy, nor a democracy. As all those countries calling for democracy they're under the rule of a procedimental democracy, but the so called "royal family" has practically no real power, so it's not a monarchy. It's as any other procedimental democracy, only that not only models can win their bread of every day (and plasma television) with their genes, but also you can live well without doing absolutely nothing and protected by the shadow of God....ooooooooo

[English assassin]

Bruce for King !

The reason we ought to get rid of them is all the clap trap they bring in their wake, Lords and ladies and sirs and people generally thinking they are better than everyone else not because of anything they have done but because they are related to a gang of organised criminals in the 13th century. And as for them being modernised, my Right Royal Backside they are, Charlie "why don't people know their place any more" Windsor has views that would embarrass the Monday Club.

The only thing is, if we get rid of them we are going to be in trouble with naming things, eg the Royal Mail will just be "Mail", the RAF will be AF and you have to admit whereas HMS Invincible sounds badass, S Invincible sounds silly. So we would have to sort out something on that front before giving Charlie his marching orders. Maybe we could jkeep the monarchy but declare it vacant, and stick a great big sword through a stone and say whoever pulls it out can be king, it worked quite well last time.

And in the mean time Bruce can be Regent.

[Lazul]

Bha! Monarchy belongs in history books and fairytales.
The only reason to support monarchy would be if the monarch would be elected by the people.

[InsaneApache]

hmmm...I too would rather be a roundhead than a cavalier, but the thought of a politician being head of state fills me with horror. Just look at our former colonies to see the calibre of elected heads of state........ *shivers with horror*

Prez Bliar would be a dangerous move ... he's bad enough now, and he supposed to be accountable to Parliament....well that's the theory. Then again the 'Firm' have no real power.....a figurehead that's all they are, so I say keep the Sax-Coberg-Gothas, albeit with reservations.

[English assassin]

The only reason to support monarchy would be if the monarch would be elected by the people.

You mean a sort of King Idol?

Its a thought.

[el_slapper]

French president already is a kind of elected king, & it does not work as well as it used to do . Plus french presidency does cost twice what English monarchy does cost.

Plus the tourism income generated by a monarchy is much higher. The problem we have in France is that noone is qualified for the throne(or maybe too much think they are)

[Snowhobbit]

Sure the tourism might be helpful, but who'd keep an extremely unjust system because of the money?
Time for a new revolution I say

[Somebody Else]

Consider renaming ships from HMS (Her Majesty's Ship) to BS (British Ship).

Although, I have to say - keep the Royals - they're pretty harmless, bring in over a billion pounds in tourism a year and, when they've got their act together, act as marvelous special envoys, nothing quite impresses the natives like a title.

Besides, getting rid of them would be surrendering to mediocrity, conforming to the rest of the world. No thanks.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

bring in over a billion pounds in tourism a year

I'm pretty sure that that's mostly the buildings they're squatting in.

[TonkaToys]

Consider renaming ships from HMS (Her Majesty's Ship) to BS (British Ship).

Considering what BS otherwise stands for, that might not be so good... "Here comes the B*llsh*t Invincible to rescue us".

Besides, getting rid of them would be surrendering to mediocrity, conforming to the rest of the world. No thanks.

Nice one.

Long live the Queen.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Interesting thing. I remember reading about a poll in the paper in my childhood, that is early 80's like '83 maybe; the monarchy had 99.7% (or 97.9%) public support.

Hmm, I would support it I guess.
.

[Spetulhu]

Sure the tourism might be helpful, but who'd keep an extremely unjust system because of the money?

What's so extremely unjust about it? Last I heard Prince Charles never had anyone executed for calling him a knob. The Queen can't invade countries, it's Bliar who handles that.

Perhaps the injustice you see is only that you're not the one getting paid to appear in public?

[Snowhobbit]

The injustice is that he as is born with privilegies that no one else can have, there's something so 18th century about it

[Slyspy]

Sure the tourism might be helpful, but who'd keep an extremely unjust system because of the money?
Time for a new revolution I say

Unjust system? I've managed to live my life so far without once being opressed by the monarchy. Parliament maybe but not the royals!

[Lazul]

You mean a sort of King Idol?

Its a thought.

Well we had a debate in sweden over the Monarchy issue. (It comes back from time to time when our king does something stupid, as he does that on a regular basis).
Anyway, one of the options presented here in Sweden was that the king would remain a powerless propaganda tool but would be elected by the people.
Odds are that our current king would be elected in such a scenario and that would mean that he atleast would be a "king of the people".

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Perhaps we could have a king/queen elected by lottery? Everyone gets a number, and if yours come up you get to be monarch for a year.

On the names front, we could replace the Royal stuff with United Kingdom-So, UKAF instead of RAF, UKS Invincible, and possibly something like the National Mail. Or we could go back to Consignia for that last

[Productivity]

On the names front, we could replace the Royal stuff with United Kingdom-So, UKAF instead of RAF, UKS Invincible, and possibly something like the National Mail. Or we could go back to Consignia for that last

EDIT: EA Beat me

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'm a yank of Irish (no traditional reverence for the English monarchy) and Polish (actually elected their kings) descent, so I really don't have a dog in this fight, but....

Practical Point:

Somebody in government has to do all of the ceremonial chores, the acceptence of letters of credence, the hand-waving appearances at new reseach hospitals, photo ops with the latest sports winners....

If you lack a ceremonial figurehead -- and the practical power of the monarchy is about as limited as it can get short of abolishing the monarchy or repeating the Charles I solution -- then you end up ladling all this crap work on top of the real work of your executive. Believe me, that stuff certainly takes up way too much of the time of a U.S. President.

Impractical Point:

If you do scrap the royals, maybe the ships could all be styled "Prime Minister's Ship Insert Name" -- after all, they're traditionally thought of as female.