Minstral Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 For those in the UK, you guys have a monarch as the head of state. How do you feel about this and what are the realities that come with this family? For the rest of us: Same question, how do you feel about this and what are the realities that come with the queen? In addition, how does this effect the power structure in your respective governments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Means we don't have to pay for a president who, as far as I can tell, doesn't actually add anything to the political process. Only thing I can say is I wouldn't actually mind the Governor General having some more power to counteract the stupidity of Harper, but then as someone who was recommended by Harper that might not help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddington Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 For those in the UK, you guys have a monarch as the head of state. How do you feel about this and what are the realities that come with this family? For the rest of us: Same question, how do you feel about this and what are the realities that come with the queen? In addition, how does this effect the power structure in your respective governments? The Queens alright mainly because she doesn't really say much. Couple of problems with an elected Head of state would be firstly who we elect, Boris Johnson as president doesn't appeal to me that much. The fact they are elected means that might actually try to wield some power. The Queens great in the fact that, bottles get broken on ships, people get waved at, we get the odd day off for weddings and there is an excuse for bunting, she also stays out of politics. Charles not so much, maybe thats when there could be changes. edit:- Slighty monarchist form the UK, slighty due ot the fact am not sure what changing the system would achieve, beyond having another politician, and the day off for weddings and bunting. Also makes what to put on stamps easier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Which Tyler Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 As a Brit , having a monarchy without any power is fine. In real terms they have no effect on me whatsoever; they are, after all, powerless.In terms of the country, they cost a small fortune in tax dollars, and they earn a small fortune in tourist dollars. I'm pretty sure that an elected head of state would try to wield power, against my wishes, would cost a similar amount, without brining in any tourists.The idea of a Blair or Thatcher as president fills me with terror, the monarchy is utterly harmless by comparison, even the outspoken ones (a mistake I doubt will be repeated now they're used to the information age).Politically speaking we've bigger fish to fry with first past the post and party political systems which have far greater, and far more damaging effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minstral Posted October 29, 2014 Author Share Posted October 29, 2014 Means we don't have to pay for a president who, as far as I can tell, doesn't actually add anything to the political process. Only thing I can say is I wouldn't actually mind the Governor General having some more power to counteract the stupidity of Harper, but then as someone who was recommended by Harper that might not help. Yet Harper kind of acts as he has both the power of a Prime Minister and head of state. In theory he holds a lot more political power then his elected position merits. I have heard that in Aussie land a Governor General tried to wield some political power but got shouted down by the general public. I'd say its just a useless office that our PM can fill with whoever he wants (Wasn't any good when it had actual power IMO either). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathis Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Given the choice I'd vote for a parliamentary republic where the President is mostly ceremonial ala Ireland and Germany (a federal republic, but still).That said I don't really give a shit, so long as any future monarch keeps quiet. That could run into problems with Charles I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Given the choice I'd vote for a parliamentary republic where the President is mostly ceremonial ala Ireland and Germany (a federal republic, but still). That would be my preference as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Charles is the best hope for us republicans (small r please); he is bound to start trying to stir up some shit and then there will actually be a reason to get rid of those parasites. Ceremonial non-hereditary president plz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddington Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Not sure I see Charles ever being King or at least not King for long. The Queen only needs to hold out for another 5 years and he's 70 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin Manderly Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 I think that in many a Commonwealth Realm the monarchy will die with Queen Elisabeth II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Ceremonial non-hereditary president plz. Can someone explain this to me, because that seems like something where you would get all of the negatives with none of the benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Well, I appreciate having an apolitical head of state whose purpose is to wave at dignitaries and generally look decorative, while the PM can concentrate on actually doing the work of running the country. What I don't like about the royals is the hereditary aspect and the fact that we're paying them money when they already own huge tracts of land (etc), as well as reinforcing a system where you really DO need to have the right family in order to get this top job. So elect a prez every, I dunno, ten years or so, maybe keep the royals around as tourist attractions with no role in govt, sorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Which Tyler Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Well, I appreciate having an apolitical head of state whose purpose is to wave at dignitaries and generally look decorative, while the PM can concentrate on actually doing the work of running the country. What I don't like about the royals is the hereditary aspect and the fact that we're paying them money when they already own huge tracts of land (etc), as well as reinforcing a system where you really DO need to have the right family in order to get this top job. So elect a prez every, I dunno, ten years or so, maybe keep the royals around as tourist attractions with no role in govt, sorted.why would you want an elected official to wave at people and launch ships, and no role in government and royals to do the same job?Why do you jneed the right family to wave at people and launch ships?Leap, I think the money they bring in is simply too hard to quantify, but the income generated is huge. We could always ask wiki? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 You could try choosing a President by a reality TV competition, thereby getting the entertainment/income benefit without the unpleasantness of hereditary office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Well, I appreciate having an apolitical head of state whose purpose is to wave at dignitaries and generally look decorative, while the PM can concentrate on actually doing the work of running the country. What I don't like about the royals is the hereditary aspect and the fact that we're paying them money when they already own huge tracts of land (etc), as well as reinforcing a system where you really DO need to have the right family in order to get this top job. So elect a prez every, I dunno, ten years or so, maybe keep the royals around as tourist attractions with no role in govt, sorted. Don't care about the hereditary aspect personally, with the land my understanding is the deal George the third, I think, (the one that shat purple) made means they give the Government far more than they get back, I can agree with the third issues though. ETA though this doesn't actually answer my question you've given me some perceived and debatable negatives of the royals. What I wanted is some positives of a ceremonial president. The only one I come up with is chosen through vote, but for a ceremonial position that seems pointless. The negatives though would include increased expense, and a near gaurentee that they will try to become more involved in politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin Manderly Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 You could try choosing a President by a reality TV competition, thereby getting the entertainment/income benefit without the unpleasantness of hereditary office. Or hire an actor or actress to play at King/Queen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 The Royals are just kinda there. I couldn't give a shit about removing them on the grounds that it means nothing to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Well, the main positive to my mind is merely as a statement that this is (ideally if not quite in practice) not a country where birth determines destiny. The very existence of the royals as head of state is a bald demonstration that the class system is alive and well thankyouverymuch and that social mobility will never be absolute. It's just ridiculous in this day and age to still have a job that you can only qualify for by being the firstborn male child of particular parents, and getting rid of that is an end in itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Well, the main positive to my mind is merely as a statement that this is (ideally if not quite in practice) not a country where birth determines destiny. The very existence of the royals as head of state is a bald demonstration that the class system is alive and well thankyouverymuch and that social mobility will never be absolute. It's just ridiculous in this day and age to still have a job that you can only qualify for by being the firstborn male child of particular parents, and getting rid of that is an end in itself. Always good to remind people of that I think. If you don't, you end up American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gneisenau Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Since we have a monarch, our PM changed the navy and air force names to include royal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.