Swear Allegiance to Your King !

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ScepticScot

Not if the choice is that dirty nonce surely ScepticScot.

Hereditary monarchies simply don't have much choice which is another severe limitation with regards to the system of rule.

If in doubt well see the likes of what happened to the Habsburg monarchic line.

Choice is always a good thing.

Do we even still need a head of state at all?

It seems to have very little function that couldn't be replaced with guest appearances from Love Island.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Do we even still need a head of state at all?

It's really all about tradition.

A better question may be how much is it going to cost the people?

And the answer appears to be far too much from where I'm standing.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ScepticScot

Do we even still need a head of state at all?

It's really all about tradition.

A better question may be how much is it going to cost the people?

And the answer appears to be far too much from where I'm standing.

That's pretty much my position.

I am not bothered about abolishng the monarchy, I don't mind the tradition, but they should be massively paired back and have no constitutional or diplomatic role.

As I've said before; what are the alternatives?

A Trump or Biden?
A Macron or Merkel?

Maybe a Putin?

All elected Heads Of State.

Or how about as has been mentioned a Boris Johnson or Tony Bliar who I'm sure would relish being elected President?

Or maybe some modern day Cromwell, the ultimate betrayer of The Common Man?

a reply to: ScepticScot

That's the point though, it should be replaced, but with what remains to be established.

And given the amount of land the aristocracy and gentry hold sway over regarding the UK.

Would replacing monarchic rule really even matter?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Do we even still need a head of state at all?

I think we do but only as a figurehead , we don't need a whole family living in Grace and Favour housing suckling money from the state that they don't actually need.

An elected President has the advantages of being a fixed term appointment , on a wage for themselves and their family in a short term let property , they would also be more accountable as they'd have to face re-election every 5 years.

originally posted by: Freeborn
As I've said before; what are the alternatives?

A Trump or Biden?
A Macron or Merkel?

Maybe a Putin?

All elected Heads Of State.

Or how about as has been mentioned a Boris Johnson or Tony Bliar who I'm sure would relish being elected President?

Or maybe some modern day Cromwell, the ultimate betrayer of The Common Man?

Someone like BJ and TB could have been first born of Liz.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: ScepticScot

Do we even still need a head of state at all?

I think we do but only as a figurehead , we don't need a whole family living in Grace and Favour housing suckling money from the state that they don't actually need.

An elected President has the advantages of being a fixed term appointment , on a wage for themselves and their family in a short term let property , they would also be more accountable as they'd have to face re-election every 5 years.

I used to think something like that was the best option but now I become less and less convinced that having one at all is necessary.

It goes way beyond just the royal family.

look at all the Lords and Ladies all the kow-towing to them, all the political fraud that people commit to make sure they get their knighthood or their title...It all needs tearing down flat.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
It goes way beyond just the royal family.

look at all the Lords and Ladies all the kow-towing to them, all the political fraud that people commit to make sure they get their knighthood or their title...It all needs tearing down flat.

Get rid of the HOL first 100%.

You all beseech them to be your monarch and reign over you all every time you sing your national anthem...

God save our gracious King,
Long live our noble King,
God save the King!
Send him victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the King!

As a member of the Commonwealth, I hope we at some point in the near future can, now that Charles is king, can dump the monarchy as head of state.

originally posted by: GAOTU789
You all beseech them to be your monarch and reign over you all every time you sing your national anthem...

God save our gracious King,
Long live our noble King,
God save the King!
Send him victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the King!

As a member of the Commonwealth, I hope we at some point in the near future can, now that Charles is king, can dump the monarchy as head of state.

Just as well I don't sing it then.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The thing is they are not all just about to go quietly into the night ScepticScot.

And given the power the lords hold at so many different levels it may be quite the task to get them to relinquish such.

How we would go about that without resorting to violence or civil war, im not quite sure.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ScepticScot

The thing is they are not all just about to go quietly into the night ScepticScot.

And given the power the lords hold at so many different levels it may be quite the task to get them to relinquish such.

How we would go about that without resorting to violence or civil war, im not quite sure.

They can all be first against the wall when the revolution comes.

We will need a big wall.

a reply to: SprocketUK

And that's more or less my point.
Its pointless replacing The Monarchy without deconstructing the whole rotten system.

We have an unfit-for-purpose party political system whose primary purpose is maintaining the status quo and actively strengthening the control of the elites over the ordinary, everyday people of the UK.

I don't see how replacing Charlie with some 'elected' Head of State, who in most likelihood will be representing the wishes and demands of the those self-same elites, will benefit any of us on any way shape or form.

Look at the elected Heads of States from around the world and can anyone truly say that replicating that here would be in any way better than what we have at present?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Fair play but keep in mind that bloodless revolutions tend to be few and far between.

And real change generally requires blood to be spilled in spades even in this day of age.

Plus chances are the people that would replace those in power will be just as bad as those that they depose.

It's a catch-22 situation if ever there was one really by my guess.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ScepticScot

Fair play but keep in mind that bloodless revolutions tend to be few and far between.

And real change generally requires blood to be spilled in spades even in this day of age.

Plus chances are the people that would replace those in power will be just as bad as those that they depose.

It's a catch-22 situation if ever there was one really by my guess.

In reality I think any change is going to be longterm and incremental.

However now is a good opportunity to make a start with the role of the royals.

Forget about "what did the Romans do for us", What has the monarchy done for us. And please don't say" the monarchy bring millions into the country". NO THEY DON'T. Tourists come for the pomp and ceremony not the Queen or King. Oh they'll line the streets for the do, but if you get among them they are nearly all Foreigners. The same foreigners that stand in front of Buck palace gazing at it and saying "they must be in because the flags up" thinking they will come out and wave to them.

They dare not have a referendum on him being king cos they know the people wouldn't have any of them. They know that, but we have no power to change anything.

a reply to: ScepticScot

In reality I think any change is going to be longterm and incremental.

It's always in the post, or so I'm led to believe, change that is.

However now is a good opportunity to make a start with the role of the royals.

Not that i don't agree, but again i don't see the House of Lords sharing the same view.

Hence the constitutional monarchy we have in place is not going anywhere anytime soon and neither are the lords, aristocracy, and landed gentry that hold sway over the nation.

originally posted by: crayzeed
Forget about "what did the Romans do for us", What has the monarchy done for us. And please don't say" the monarchy bring millions into the country". NO THEY DON'T. Tourists come for the pomp and ceremony not the Queen or King. Oh they'll line the streets for the do, but if you get among them they are nearly all Foreigners. The same foreigners that stand in front of Buck palace gazing at it and saying "they must be in because the flags up" thinking they will come out and wave to them.

They dare not have a referendum on him being king cos they know the people wouldn't have any of them. They know that, but we have no power to change anything.

100%.

I think the Palace of Versailes gets more visitors than all UK royal palaces put together.

Part of which is going to be that access isn't restricted to the sections the royals aren't using.