The British Monarchy is worth billions for the UK. So why get rid of it? By putting a president into power (aka a republic) you will be putting way more power in said persons hands unless you just make it a figure head like it is now. And if you do that, do you really think that the millions of millions of tourists coming to the UK to see the royal palaces, and so on, would actually come in the same numbers? I dont thats for sure.
Please tell me, you talk about Prince William and not about Harry.Monarchy is a factor of stability. I don't know if it is still necessary, but eh...it has been like that for centuries and it's not bad. Anyway, it does not have a lot of power anymore.
Maybe Charles looks dumb (we've got the same problem here, Prince Philippe is sympathic but he does not look very clever and is disliked by the Flemish) but think in the long term.
Or if you really don't like him, put somebody else (his son?) to the throne
Please tell me, you talk about Prince William and not about Harry.
Prince Charles does not look dumb and he is not dumb for sure. He can fly helicopters and jets for example.
name some recent royals who were mental athletes...
While the queen is around i gotta say i support the Monarchy.She embodies a more classical form of monarchy that has alot peoples affections.However when prince charles takes over i cant stand the idea of him becoming king.He is a fool who doesent realise his place that as king he should keep his opinions to himself he is a sucker for any bullshit going like homeopathy i dont believe he will keep his political opinions to himself the way the queen does.
I think once the queen goes we can no longer pretend to hold on to something so far from the past.It will be sad but i think around the world people dont like Charles and tourist money will dry up.
I have 2 alternatives
1 A president at least we could have a range of candidates which always seems like a much wider choice to me.I hate the fact Gordan brown is prime minister yet nobody voted for him to be (dont point out the technicalities to the voting system government is very centralised) I actually think a general election should be called if a leader retires and Browns refusal to have an election just seems so undemocratic to me.
2 We have a lottery style competition £1 a ticket all the money goes to pay for the Monarchs expenses and the random winner gets to be king or queen.
Or if you really don't like him, put somebody else (his son?) to the throne
So a potential way to deal with this would be to appoint someone on the basis of merrit rather then birth. So if you appointed someone like Stephen Fry, who is largely regarded as a national treasure anyway then you could have a good center to our national identity without the less desireable aspects of the monarchy that belong in the dark ages.
Stephen fry is a national treasure??? :shock: WHAT???
Probably a bad choice of words and perhaps a bad example but someone who's widely respected and liked yet uncontroverisal politically [and thus less divisive]. What im trying to say is that we should be using the monarchy a bit like a peerage [albiet without the bribery] and reward people on the basis of achieving something in the arts or sciences rather then having blue blood.
With a helicopter you have to manage to stay in the air for while, it's not so easy how it looks like. A nice person showed me some things about flying an Ecureuil, which is the coolest helicopter in my opinion, and I think, it was a lot of fun, we were flying over the area here and he was pretty good with flying and explaining.He is an idiot and everyone knows it.Thats like saying someone isnt an idiot because they can drive a car.
I don't know this from Germany.I have to work among morons who dont deserve their place i swear i could pick homeless people off the street that would do better. The UK still has big problem with the class system where you do well not because who you are but where your from.
We have such a strange rule about the President and talking about politics, too. Sometimes the Presidents here break this rule.When/If Prince Charles does become King he will no longer be allowed to voice opinions in public. He can only voice opinions to the Prime Minister. Which IMO is good news. Isn't it a funny how all other monarchs called Charles are usualy idiots?? lol
Wir wollen unser'n alten Kaiser Wilhelm wiederha'am, mit'm Bart, mit'm Bart, mit 'nem langen Bart ...Secondly I like the monarchy, because it is different. I don't want a French, American, German, Irish type of government, I want a British sort of government, the sort of government that has evolved over one thousand years. Anyway a President usually is like a monarch, goes away on state visits and does f**k and leaves all the work to the Prime Minister/Chancellor/Taiosearch or whatever.
Maybe it's a good idea, but it did not work well for Germany and Poland. Both countries had their election monarchies for centuries. In Germany it ended with people got voted who did have rather not so much power, the houses Luxemburg and Wittelsbach for example, until the house Habsburg came into power.I think would be a good idea actually. Its well within parliaments power to dissmiss and appoint kings [indeed they,ve done so 3 times] so it shouldnt be too difficult consitutionally and I think would be a good way to keep some of the good sides of the monarchy while removing the bad.
What annoys me about the Monarchy in its current form is the notion that someones worthy to be head of state by the virtue of who his parents where. I find it hard to be patriotic about something that proclaims to the world "look at us, we missed the enlightenment!"
So a potential way to deal with this would be to appoint someone on the basis of merrit rather then birth. So if you appointed someone like Stephen Fry, who is largely regarded as a national treasure anyway then you could have a good center to our national identity without the less desireable aspects of the monarchy that belong in the dark ages.
if Charles wants to have an opinion he can go right ahead, if he breaks convention though - off with his head! :mrgreen:
Secondly I like the monarchy, because it is different. I don't want a French, American, German, Irish type of government, I want a British sort of government, the sort of government that has evolved over one thousand years.
...the sort of government that gives 60% of the Parliament to a party with 35% of the votes and has an utterly undemocratic upper house... I view the monarchy in much the same way I view the rest of our political system, old, crumbling and in dire need of reform.
Don't get me wrong, the monarchy has served it's purpose, but Red Dave is right... we missed the enlightenment by some two hundred years. Being a modern, liberal democracy with a hereditary head of state, appointed by God, is not something to hold onto with pride, it's something over which we should be ashamed. Replace her with a weak Presidency, a rotating position or a headless state, whatever, but let's stop holding this relic of a by-gone political system in such high regard.
It's been a while...
...the sort of government that gives 60% of the Parliament to a party with 35% of the votes and has an utterly undemocratic upper house... I view the monarchy in much the same way I view the rest of our political system, old, crumbling and in dire need of reform.
Don't get me wrong, the monarchy has served it's purpose, but Red Dave is right... we missed the enlightenment by some two hundred years. Being a modern, liberal democracy with a hereditary head of state, appointed by God, is not something to hold onto with pride, it's something over which we should be ashamed. Replace her with a weak Presidency, a rotating position or a headless state, whatever, but let's stop holding this relic of a by-gone political system in such high regard.
It's been a while...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?