King Charles III

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Why bother? If they have no power at all, why hold votes for them. Sounds like a waste of time, a bundle of red tape and a whole lot of bureaucracy. If you don't have a Monarchy why the hell have a equivalent figurehead position at all?

We already spend far too much money on our President, and as I have said before, I saw somewhere on Paradox Forums where someone proved that Germany spends more on the German President than [I believe] Britain spends on theirs, once the final totals are all factored in.

[CountArach]

We already spend far too much money on our President, and as I have said before, I saw somewhere on Paradox Forums where someone proved that Germany spends more on the German President than [I believe] Britain spends on theirs, once the final totals are all factored in.

That sounds like putting a price tag on freedom...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Royalty should be elected in the UK or dissolved. They could use a "King" as a traditional figurehead or Cultural Representative like President or Chancellor.

"Born into it" is simply not good enough anymore.

Landmarks would have the allure with or without Royals.

[Incongruous]

Royalty should be elected in the UK or dissolved. They could use a "King" as a traditional figurehead or Cultural Representative like President or Chancellor.

"Born into it" is simply not good enough anymore.

Landmarks would have the allure with or without Royals.

Bollox, show me how your own elected representatives give a damn about your freedom, Christ an American talking about safeguards of freedom.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Bollox, show me how your own elected representatives give a damn about your freedom, Christ an American talking about safeguards of freedom.

Okay

[rory_20_uk]

Bollox, show me how your own elected representatives give a damn about your freedom, Christ an American talking about safeguards of freedom.

Seconded. Democratic they're not, but there's few elected officials that have done as good a job, and on average the elected ones are far down in the gutter.

[JR-]

our system may indeed be an anachronism, but it works, and the test for whether change should be instituted is whether it would actually make things better.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Seconded. Democratic they're not, but there's few elected officials that have done as good a job, and on average the elected ones are far down in the gutter.

Might be worth looking at that track record over more than just the current generation, don't you think? Since, you know, heredity is important in selection here.

Elizabeth II - Exceptional
George VI - Decent

(Note, both of the above were by accident, and not due to inherit because of:)

Edward VIII - Coward who shirked his responsibility
George V - Coward and brute
Edward VII - Drunkard and rake who would have made President Clinton blush
Victoria - Self-obessed depressive who refused to particiapte in government role for years
William IV - Decent sort, responsible for ten illegitimate children but no legal issue
George IV - Drunk, crook, gambler, rake, opium addict
George III - Mad as a sack of badgers

In the same time line, there were some pretty outstanding Presidents of the United States, and some equally outstanding Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom.

And whilst the recent two, favoured by the abdication, have been Good Monarchs, the whole point of this thread was the dread in which Charles' accession is held by a substantial part of the populace.

Kings make for great entertainment, but not much of a system of government.

[Sir Moody]

Actually the King/Queen can reject a PM and if they really wanted too they could dissolve Parliment which does put a check and balance on the Commons and the PM.

The King/Queen is apart from the powers above just the cerimonial head of state - the PM holds most of the power and last time i checked we do elect them so saying we are not "democratic" is somewhat a leap.

The Monarchs powers are layed out in a number of documents and barring millitary coup they wouldnt be able to gain anymore without the commons support.

What we REALLY need in the UK is a single written Consitution defining the Monarchs and the Houses roles and the rights of the people as we currently are stuck with an emalguration of numerous court rullings/treaties.

[naut]

Victoria - Self-obessed depressive who refused to particiapte in government role for years

Alfred was a smart bloke though. Notably his idea for the Great Exhibition, advocating the views of Charles Darwin and setting the Monarchy up to be above politics.

Edit:

Then why haven't they done that already? Because they have no power! Why do you even bother keeping the Queen around at all?

No offence intended here. But, the main reason is that the UK actually has a history, or at least an interesting one, and the Monarchy helps symbolise that and put it into more tangible terms.

[Strike For The South]

George III - Mad as a sack of badgers

You give the man to much credit.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That sounds like putting a price tag on freedom...

What freedom? The monarch doesn't interfere with or restrict our freedom, and they don't in Britain. The Labour Party is already good enough at that.

[CountArach]

What freedom? The monarch doesn't interfere with or restrict our freedom, and they don't in Britain. The Labour Party is already good enough at that.

How about my freedom from Tyrrany? My freedom to elect my own leaders?

C'mon CA you are smarter than that, and anyone who believes the Commons cares about freedom is an idiot.

The Commons don't care about Freedom - point me to where I said that and I shall correct it. Oh wait, I didn't!

Simply because elected officials don't care about us doesn't mean we should try to:
1. Scrap the system
2. Reform the system

The Monarchy would be a good butress against the ever absurd stance of Parliament.

Then why haven't they done that already? Because they have no power! Why do you even bother keeping the Queen around at all?

[InsaneApache]

Why do you even bother keeping the Queen around at all?

She looks a lot better on postage stamps than Pa McBroon.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

How about my freedom from Tyrrany?

Last I checked, no monarch in the West is a tyrant, or has been for quite a long time.

My freedom to elect my own leaders?

As I said, here we don't anyways. Besides, the monarch doesn't have much power.

[Incongruous]

The Commons don't care about Freedom - point me to where I said that and I shall correct it. Oh wait, I didn't!

You are saying that the Monarch must go because you seem to harbour some notion that the Monarchy impedes my personal freedoms, well it does not. The elected part of our government does not care about how many freedoms its destroys, yet you seem to wish to give them more power, by scrapping the Monarchy.

Reform? Reform to what? Reform for the sake of reform is bollocks, high minded Republicanism is also bollocks, because it leads to exactly the same thing, the concentration of power to a limited section of society.

Look at the U.S.A.

You should fear politicians mor than anything else in the world, including constitutional monarchs.

[Strike For The South]

Reform? Reform to what? Reform for the sake of reform is bollocks, high minded Republicanism is also bollocks, because it leads to exactly the same thing, the concentration of power to a limited section of society.

Look at the U.S.A.

Not if you do it right. A monarchy is an intolabre from of aristocracy.

[Incongruous]

Not if you do it right. A monarchy is an intolabre from of aristocracy.

God, more high minded Rupublicanism, what is so inherently great about a Republic?
Sod all.

Intolerable? In an absolute form, but in a proper constitutional form it is most certainly not.

[Incongruous]

That sounds like putting a price tag on freedom...

Oh please! The Drama!

C'mon CA you are smarter than that, and anyone who believes the Commons cares about freedom is an idiot.

The Monarchy would be a good butress against the ever absurd stance of Parliament.