An Australian Republic

[Kralizec]

@ PVC; I think you get my point, though.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

@ PVC; I think you get my point, though.

I do, but I question it's validity because the Crown is basically a hereditory posession, like my father's land would be if he died. Remember, our monarchy has always been taken by the strongest, never gifted to a vassel.

The issue is how you would divide the Queen "personal" and "offical" posessions in the event of dissolution; this isn't Greece, even if we became a Republic I doubt there would be much (if any) vindictiveness.

[rvg]

Personally I think the monarchy has too little power.

Oddly enough, I agree. Even though I'm definitely a fan of the republican form of government, if you have monarchy you might as well get some use out of it at least for as long as you have it. The monarch being above political parties, elections and populism in general can be an asset from time to time.

[Kralizec]

I do, but I question it's validity because the Crown is basically a hereditory posession, like my father's land would be if he died. Remember, our monarchy has always been taken by the strongest, never gifted to a vassel.

The issue is how you would divide the Queen "personal" and "offical" posessions in the event of dissolution; this isn't Greece, even if we became a Republic I doubt there would be much (if any) vindictiveness.

Before Magna Carta and whatnot, the Crown's possessions included basically everything.
If you place singular emphasis on hereditary rights, Britain / the UK would pretty much have been a hereditary dictatorship with a totally useless, largely advisory parliament (if at all)
The Crown Estate is really just an eroded remnant of earlier days. They're not considered private property anymore, they're simply the goods and lands wich are used to cover the costs of the queen and some of her relatives. That's why the claim espoused by some here, that Elizabeth Alexandra Mary covers her own expenses, is disingenuous.

As for the golden handshake in the event of abolishment...let's not think ahead to much

Personally I think the monarchy has too little power. E.G. all parties stated there would be a referendum on the EU. I believe the Queen should have refused to sign the legislation until there was one - holding the government to account as the Commons definitely doesn't.

What makes you think that the Queen will always follow the Will of the People©? Or that she dissaproves of breaking election promises? For all we know, she could be a staunch fan of Gordon Brown and she chooses not to show it to appear neutral

[Husar]

The Crown Estate is really just an eroded remnant of earlier days. They're not considered private property anymore, they're simply the goods and lands wich are used to cover the costs of the queen and some of her relatives. That's why the claim espoused by some here, that Elizabeth Alexandra Mary covers her own expenses, is disingenuous.

So you think they should make it her private property again so that she can cover her own expenses?
Would it make a difference?
I also wonder why it bothers you how the British like to spend their tax money on their leadership? I mean they obviously like to have a queen so why should they not spend money on her? If someone likes to have a big TV and spends money on it, do you always go and tell them how a smaller TV could save them so much money? And I don't hate royals just because they're royals, if they're arrogant that's another thing but as long as they take their responsibilities seriously and behave nicely I don't see that much of a problem, and once they don't anymore, you can still get rid of them.
As i tried to say earlier, they also fuel the industries of the yellow press, presidents (with the exception of the american president perhaps) are far less interesting and romantic in comparison.

What makes you think that the Queen will always follow the Will of the People©? Or that she dissaproves of breaking election promises? For all we know, she could be a staunch fan of Gordon Brown and she chooses not to show it to appear neutral

Well, a president can also be a fan of the prime minister, it's even more likely if they're both from the same party, the queen would be more neutral, especially as she'd work with many prime ministers during her reign and thus I could see her being less likely to get attached to any one of them.

[Kralizec]

So you think they should make it her private property again so that she can cover her own expenses?
Would it make a difference?
I also wonder why it bothers you how the British like to spend their tax money on their leadership? I mean they obviously like to have a queen so why should they not spend money on her? If someone likes to have a big TV and spends money on it, do you always go and tell them how a smaller TV could save them so much money? And I don't hate royals just because they're royals, if they're arrogant that's another thing but as long as they take their responsibilities seriously and behave nicely I don't see that much of a problem, and once they don't anymore, you can still get rid of them.
As i tried to say earlier, they also fuel the industries of the yellow press, presidents (with the exception of the american president perhaps) are far less interesting and romantic in comparison.

It's up to the Brits themselves, I just felt like tackling some spurious arguments

As for "my" queen, ideally the crown would be abolished as soon as she abdicates, so that her stupid son is forced to look for actual employment. Most people don't seem bothered about the monarchy as long as they stay out trouble, wich I can understand, but I don't understand how quickly they manage to forget once a scandal escapes from secrecy and reaches the press. I'm fairly sure that a big chunck of the (over) 110 milion E's we spend on our Royalty each year is to make sure that embarassing information is covered up.

Well, a president can also be a fan of the prime minister, it's even more likely if they're both from the same party, the queen would be more neutral, especially as she'd work with many prime ministers during her reign and thus I could see her being less likely to get attached to any one of them.

There's no reason why a president shouldn't be allowed to be a member of a party (they've tried that in Romania, it doesn't work). Now with a non-executive president like yours, he should of course be above the average day-to-day bickering in the Bundestag, but that's not the same as being neutral. Of course not every politician is fit for the job, that's why they're picked for their skills and experience instead of who their mommy and daddy is.

Sure, a king/queen would naturally meet many politicians over the years. But does that mean that she doesn't have her own political opinions?
I assume that most kings and queens do have their private political opinions, and of course it's no big deal if they keep them to themselves. I just think it's rather odd that someone would think that because the elected politicians are all frauds, and that an unelected aristocrat should have more power because she obviously would make the right choice.

[Beskar]

As for "my" queen, ideally the crown would be abolished as soon as she abdicates

Being honest, I would support that. We turn into a republic as soon as she abdicates/dies.

Also, you don't have to have a president take-over. Just saying...

[Subotan]

Get rid of the Queen. We need an Emperor instead.

[Kralizec]

Being honest, I would support that. We turn into a republic as soon as she abdicates/dies.

Also, you don't have to have a president take-over. Just saying...

Are you Dutch, by the way?

[Beskar]

Are you Dutch, by the way?

No, just your brother across the channel with a similar identical issue.

[Kralizec]

No

I suspected you were because of the Ferengi pic you used earlier (look in the bottom right corner)
Well, you have my sympathies for being British instead....

No, just your brother across the channel with a similar identical issue

Just republican (with a small "r"), not a leftie though

[Furunculus]

Being honest, I would support that. We turn into a republic as soon as she abdicates/dies.

Also, you don't have to have a president take-over. Just saying...

surely the time to oppose a monarchy is right now, if the republican idea is what you believe in, waiting till the death of a long serving and vastly respected monarch and then sticking the knife in a new and untested monarch just makes you look sneaky, and as if you don't have the courage of your convictions.......

[Husar]

Get rid of the Queen. We need an Emperor instead.

Ah, yeah, we got this nobleman-guy here, forgot the name but he pees at pavilions, beats up reporters and seems to cheat on his wife, should make him the new Kaiser.

[Beskar]

surely the time to oppose a monarchy is right now, if the republican idea is what you believe in, waiting till the death of a long serving and vastly respected monarch and then sticking the knife in a new and untested monarch just makes you look sneaky, and as if you don't have the courage of your convictions.......

No, I will do it right now, give me the power.

However, since I don't, I would compromise with the death of the current head (she is old, not like it will be too long anyway plus you can get the changes implemented in time and ready), and takes the monarchy with her to her grave.

Nothing to do with sneaky. That is just baiting.

[Louis VI the Fat]

No, I will do it right now, give me the power.

However, since I don't, I would compromise with the death of the current head (she is old, not like it will be too long anyway plus you can get the changes implemented in time and ready), and takes the monarchy with her to her grave.

Nothing to do with sneaky. That is just baiting.

Don't strip the tribal chieftain of his power, you sneaky coward.


What do you think this is? The 21st century!?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Kralizec]

The top one is Albert II of Belgium, right?

[Furunculus]

No, I will do it right now, give me the power.

However, since I don't, I would compromise with the death of the current head (she is old, not like it will be too long anyway plus you can get the changes implemented in time and ready), and takes the monarchy with her to her grave.

Nothing to do with sneaky. That is just baiting.

accepted. :)

[Subotan]

Don't strip the tribal chieftain of his power, you sneaky coward.

Well, she is the Queen of Papua New Guinea....

[A Very Super Market]

So you think they should make it her private property again so that she can cover her own expenses?
Would it make a difference?
I also wonder why it bothers you how the British like to spend their tax money on their leadership? I mean they obviously like to have a queen so why should they not spend money on her? If someone likes to have a big TV and spends money on it, do you always go and tell them how a smaller TV could save them so much money? And I don't hate royals just because they're royals, if they're arrogant that's another thing but as long as they take their responsibilities seriously and behave nicely I don't see that much of a problem, and once they don't anymore, you can still get rid of them.
As i tried to say earlier, they also fuel the industries of the yellow press, presidents (with the exception of the american president perhaps) are far less interesting and romantic in comparison.


Well, a president can also be a fan of the prime minister, it's even more likely if they're both from the same party, the queen would be more neutral, especially as she'd work with many prime ministers during her reign and thus I could see her being less likely to get attached to any one of them.

Mr. Disraeli would like a word with you.

[CountArach]

surely the time to oppose a monarchy is right now, if the republican idea is what you believe in, waiting till the death of a long serving and vastly respected monarch and then sticking the knife in a new and untested monarch just makes you look sneaky, and as if you don't have the courage of your convictions.......

Actually, in Australia at least, changing to a Republic gains about 10-15% more support in opinion polling if you insert a 'sleeper clause' that says we will change over on the death of Queen Elizabeth II.

[Furunculus]

accepted, but then i have no issues with Oz wishing to forge its own path in the world.

[Subotan]

Mr. Disraeli would like a word with you.

There's a statue of him in my local town

[Husar]

Mr. Disraeli would like a word with you.

Nice, he can send me a PM.