[Closed] God save the queen

Regardless of job, anyone who does it for 60 years gets a party, her job affects more people so gets a bigger party.

Would be interested to know what happened if the next incumbent decided "no, all that going on holidays and having to meet people is a bit taxing, not for me I'm afraid" presumably there would be a fair amount of coersion to do their "job" but if they refused would they be removed?

Would you rather have an elected head of state?

Cameron?
Miliband?
Blair?
Boris?

Maybe we could have phone voting instead?

Meet your new head of state

[img] [/img]

Any of the above.

Would you rather have an elected head of state?

Yes. They don't have to use the same system as the USA or France. The Irish one would be fine.

The UK government is elected by the population to run the country. The government is headed by the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister goes for weekly meetings with the unelected monarch-for-life,(who also signs off 'laws'). This sounds to me like yet another archaic, deferential part of the system

I reckon it sets a really bad example of our nation to have the pinnicle of our society represented in this way.

Exactly, but a lot of the population don't seem to see it that way.

Would you rather have an elected head of state?

my great great great great grandfather was an proper hard bard who got a massive gang together and took over this island, as a direct descendant of said bard I'll* expect you to bow and scrape before me.

*although TBH lots of people seem to want to bow and scrape for royalty without being asked. "Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. It was it's tendency to bend at the knees"

She's hardly a direct descendent of anyone, is she? Every so often over the centuries they've parachuted in a foreign 'monarch' to rule over these islands when the current bloodline dies out or goes too far in some way. Some of our rulers have had very tenuous royal links indeed.

my great great great great grandfather was an proper hard bard who got a massive gang together and took over this island, as a direct descendant of said bard I'll* expect you to bow and scrape before me.

Which sort of shows your lack of knowledge of the constitutional history of this great nation.

we tried letting politicians be in charge

it didn't work

That's the way I see, Donk.

Taking power by force in the dim and distant past, losing 'power', but remaining in a very privileged position, marrying 'royals' from other nations to keep it all in the family and occasionally scraping around Europe for successors.

Most of us are 'commoners'. Nice.

we tried letting politicians be in charge

it didn't work

Ah yes, it would never work for any country, would it? Those poor, ignorant republics around the world.

How much do you think that the monarch is in charge of in this country?

but if they refused would they be removed?

I think we can safely say that they would be forced to abdicate.

I'm not sure why anyone should assume that the monarch alone defines their own job and that they can simply do as they please - it's been almost 800 years since the British Monarchy was forced to sign Magna Carta.

For an example of what the job of the British Monarchy entails read the following, if your are genuinely interested of course, which you probably aren't.

The Queen's working day begins like many people's - at her desk.

After scanning the daily British newspapers, The Queen reviews her correspondence.

Every day, 200-300 (and sometimes many more) letters from the public arrive. The Queen chooses a selection to read herself and tells members of her staff how she would like them to be answered.

This enables Her Majesty personally to see a typical cross-section of her daily correspondence. Virtually every letter is answered by staff in her Private Secretary's office or by a lady-in-waiting.

The Queen will then see, separately, two of her Private Secretaries with the daily quota of official papers and documents. This process takes upwards of an hour.

Every day of every year, wherever she is, The Queen receives from government ministers, and from her representatives in the Commonwealth and foreign countries, information in the form of policy papers, Cabinet documents, telegrams, letters and other State papers.

These are sent up to her by the Private Secretaries in the famous 'red boxes'. All of these papers have to be read and, where necessary, approved and signed.

A series of official meetings or 'audiences' will often follow. The Queen will see a number of important people.

These include overseas ambassadors and high commissioners, newly appointed British ambassadors, senior members of the British and Commonwealth Armed Forces on their appointment and retirement, and English bishops and judges on their appointment.

Each meeting usually lasts 10 to 20 minutes, and usually The Queen and her visitor meet alone.

The Queen may also meet a number of people who have won prizes or awards in a variety of fields such as literature or science, to present them individually with their prize.

If there is an Investiture - a ceremony for the presentation of honours and decorations - it begins at 11.00am and lasts just over an hour. The Queen usually meets around 100 people at each Investiture to present Orders, decorations and medals.

The Queen will often lunch privately. Every few months, she and The Duke of Edinburgh will invite a dozen guests from a wide variety of backgrounds to an informal lunch. Occasionally, the guest list may consist of far fewer people, such as a newly appointed or retiring Governor-General and their guest.

If The Queen is spending the morning on engagements away from her desk and other commitments, she will visit up to three venues before lunch, either alone or jointly with The Duke of Edinburgh.

On a regional visit, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh lunch with a wide variety of people in places ranging from town halls to hospitals.

In the afternoons, The Queen often goes out on public engagements.

Such visits require meticulous planning beforehand to meet the hosts' requirements.

And The Queen prepares for each visit by briefing herself on whom she will be meeting and what she will be seeing and doing.

Royal engagements are carefully selected by The Queen from a large number of invitations sent to her each year, often by the Lord-Lieutenants (The Queen's representatives in counties throughout the United Kingdom).

This helps to ensure the widest possible spread and to make effective use of The Queen's time.

If the engagement is outside London, her journeys are often by air using a helicopter or an RAF aircraft.

The Queen carries out around 430 engagements (including audiences) a year, to meet people, open events and buildings, unveil plaques and make speeches.

Such engagements can include visits to schools, hospitals, factories, military units, art galleries, sheltered accommodation for elderly people, hostels for the homeless, local community schemes in inner city areas, and other British and Commonwealth organisations.

The Queen regularly goes out for the whole day to a particular region or city. If the visit is a busy one, or if it lasts more than a day, then The Queen will travel overnight on the Royal Train.

The Duke of Edinburgh will often accompany The Queen on such visits; when this happens, they will carry out some engagements jointly and others separately to ensure that the maximum number of people and organisations can be visited.

The Queen may end the afternoon seeing a number of Government ministers in a meeting of the Privy Council.

The Queen's working day does not stop at the end of the afternoon.

Early evening may see a meeting with the Prime Minister. The Queen has a weekly meeting alone with the Prime Minister, when they are both in London (in addition to other meetings throughout the year).

This usually takes place on Wednesdays at 6.30 pm. No written record is made of such meetings; neither The Queen nor the Prime Minister talk about what is discussed between them, as communications between The Queen and the Prime Minister always remains confidential.

At about 7.30 pm a report of the day's parliamentary proceedings, written by one of the Government's Whips, arrives. The Queen always reads this the same evening.

On some evenings, The Queen may attend a film première, a variety of concert performances in aid of a charitable cause, or a reception linked to organisations of which she is Patron.

The Queen also regularly hosts official receptions at Buckingham Palace (usually with other members of the Royal Family), such as those for the Diplomatic Corps and The Queen's Award for Industry.

Her Majesty may also hold receptions ahead of overseas visits. In 2007, prior to attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Uganda, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh gave a reception at Buckingham Palace for Commonwealth Africans living and working in the United Kingdom.

Other receptions mark the work of particular groups in the community, such as those recently given for members of the British design and music worlds.

The Queen has numerous private interests, which can coincide with her public work, to complete her working day.

Her Majesty also attends the Derby and the Summer Race Meeting at Ascot, a Royal occasion. As a keen owner and breeder of racehorses, she often sees her horses run at other meetings.

As owner of private estates at Balmoral and Sandringham, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh oversee the management of the estates which are run on a commercial basis. She takes a close interest in all aspects of estate life, particularly in the tenant farmers and employees who live and work on the estates.

Through her public and private work, The Queen is well-briefed and well-known. She has met many more people from all walks of life both in this country and overseas than her predecessors.

This takes time and effort. Often, one of the last lights on in the Palace at night is The Queen finishing her 'red box' of official papers.

Of course the Monarchy is an antiquated and archaic institution which is a hangover from the feudal days, in the same way as the nobility in the House of Lords is. Consequently it has no place at all in an advanced democracy, but as I say, that's a different issue altogether. And since we are still so far removed from an advanced democracy, and the role of the Monarchy is so unconnected with the real problems confronting ordinary working people, that it's not worth making an issue out of it.

Unless of course you want to do so for completely pointless vindictive reasons, or to distract attention away from the real issues of economic power and privileges, or you just want to bolster your "leftie" credentials.

The current queen does keep herself busy and does seem a very dignified lady (luckily), but just think, if the monarchy were dissolved, then the poor old queen wouldn't have to do any of that any more -60 years is a long time. That's yet another reason to do so.

Being so far removed from the people is part of the problem....

Dissolving the monarchy and hereditary peerages & removing bishops from the Lords would be moves in the right direction. I'm not sure I have any [i]leftie[/i] credentials.

She's hardly a direct descendent of anyone, is she?

It's not a job I fancy ernie but I bet plenty would like to have a go at it but can't because they weren't born to the relevant parents.

Consequently it has no place at all in an advanced democracy

I'm not sure I have any leftie credentials.

💡 Maybe for completely pointless vindictive reasons then ?

But maybe you can explain how abolition of the monarchy would be 'a move in the right direction' ?...... how it would enhance the lives of ordinary working people ?

As an indefatigable leftie I am more than happy to live in a society free of antiquated and archaic institutions, which are replaced by democratic structures. But since replacing the monarchy with democratic structures doesn't appear to to be on the agenda, I can only see as a completely pointless and futile exercise.

Show me how the abolition of the monarchy right now will increase the power of ordinary working people, and I will enthusiastically support it. In the meantime I don't have a problem with it - I actually quite like the Royal Family 🙂

EDIT : Perhaps I should add that whilst I quite like the Royal Family, I'm hugely uninterested in them. They just seem pleasant enough.

something 'royal' that amused me recently was the discussion about females succeeding the throne over their younger brothers and how it would take a lot of discussion for such a change of protocol.

Now forgive me if I am being simplistic, but it wouldn't take that much thought or work at all to change to a slightly more gender-equal system would it?

Sir, I salute your indefatigability 😉

I certainly don't like or dislike the people themselves as I don't know them. I'm not feeling particularly vindictive or unpleasant towards them either, but I do object to the concept of monarchy.

Maybe you, or I, or Dave down the road should become the monarch and our families can be added to the civil list. We're pleasant enough, deserve it as much as anybody else and it won't affect ordinary working people as they won't notice the extra few pence spent from their taxes.

Alternatively, we could just do without a monarchy at all as it is archaic, incompatible with a meritocratic, egalitarian society, not important and we don't need one.

Consequently it has no place at all in an advanced democracy, but as I say, that's a different issue altogether.

I thought that was ENTIRELY the issue.

I thought that was ENTIRELY the issue.

😀

You think we live in an advanced democracy ?

It's the people what govern is it ?

How quaint.

to distract attention away from the real issues of economic power and privileges

That's probably the salient point. The monarchy might be a horrible feudal itch that needs scratching, but, if we're sharpening the guillotine to cleanse us of the unwanted, Liz would be near the back of a long queue headed, most probably, by Murdoch.

....but thats the point, Murdoch may well get offed by his shareholders, his son already has been to some extent. Regardless of how big a knob a royal is the only way they get offed is via the great expense of a state funeral.

Regardless of how big a knob a royal is the only way they get offed is via the great expense of a state funeral.

Really ? What do you base that on ?

The King just two monarchs ago was given the sack, or forced to abdicate as it is more politely referred to, precisely because too many people thought he was a knob.

When Edward visited depressed mining villages in Wales his comment that "something must be done" led to concerns among elected politicians that he would interfere in political matters, traditionally avoided by constitutional monarchs. Ramsay MacDonald, Lord President of the Council, wrote of the king's comments: "These escapades should be limited. They are an invasion into the field of politics & should be watched constitutionally." As Prince of Wales, Edward had publicly referred to left-wing politicians as "cranks" and made speeches counter to government policy During his reign as king, his refusal to accept the advice of ministers continued: he opposed the imposition of sanctions on Italy after its invasion of Ethiopia (then known as "Abyssinia"), refused to receive the deposed Emperor of Ethiopia, and would not support the League of Nations.

Although Edward's comments had made him popular in Wales, he became extremely unpopular with the public in Scotland following his refusal to open a new wing of Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, claiming he could not do so because he was in mourning for his father. On the day after the opening he was pictured in the newspapers cavorting on holiday: he had turned down the public event in favour of meeting Mrs Simpson.

Members of the British government became further dismayed by the proposed marriage after being told that Wallis Simpson was an agent of Nazi Germany. The Foreign Office obtained leaked dispatches from the German Reich's Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Joachim von Ribbentrop, which revealed his strong view that opposition to the marriage was motivated by the wish "to defeat those Germanophile forces which had been working through Mrs. Simpson" It was rumoured that Wallis had access to confidential government papers sent to Edward, which he notoriously left unguarded at his Fort Belvedere residence. While Edward was abdicating, the personal protection officers guarding Mrs Simpson in exile in France sent reports to Downing Street suggesting that she might "flit to Germany".

Files from the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation, written after the abdication, reveal a further series of claims. The most damaging allege that in 1936, during her affair with King Edward, she was simultaneously having an affair with Ambassador Ribbentrop. The Bureau's source (Duke Carl Alexander of Württemberg, a distant relative of Queen Mary then living as a monk in the United States) claimed that Simpson and Ribbentrop had a relationship, and that Ribbentrop sent her 17 carnations every day, one for each occasion they had slept together. The FBI claims were symptomatic of the extremely damaging gossip circulating about the woman Edward proposed to make queen.

Relations between the United Kingdom and the United States were strained during the inter-war years and the majority of Britons were reluctant to accept an American as queen consort

Apart from the political and constitutional objections to Edward VIII remaining king there were moral objections :

The king's ministers (like his family) found Mrs Simpson's background and behaviour unacceptable for a queen. Rumours and innuendo about her circulated in society. The king's mother, the dowager Queen Mary, was even told that Mrs Simpson might have held some sort of sexual control over Edward, as she had released him from an undefined sexual dysfunction through practices learnt in a Chinese brothel. This view was partially shared by Dr. Alan Campbell Don, Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who wrote that he suspected the king "is sexually abnormal which may account for the hold Mrs. S. has over him". Even Edward VIII's official biographer, Philip Ziegler, noted that: "There must have been some sort of sadomasochistic relationship ... [Edward] relished the contempt and bullying she bestowed on him."

Police detectives following Mrs Simpson reported back that while involved with Edward, she was also involved in another sexual relationship, with a married car mechanic and salesman named Guy Trundle. This may well have been passed on to senior figures in the Establishment, including members of the royal family. A third lover has also been suggested, the Duke of Leinster. Joseph Kennedy, the American ambassador, described her as a "tart", and his wife, Rose Kennedy, refused to dine with her. Edward, however, was either unaware of these allegations, or chose to ignore them.

Wallis was perceived to be pursuing Edward for his money; his equerry wrote that she would eventually leave him after "having secured the cash". The future prime minister Neville Chamberlain wrote in his diary that she was "an entirely unscrupulous woman who is not in love with the King but is exploiting him for her own purposes. She has already ruined him in money and jewels.

Relations between the United Kingdom and the United States were strained during the inter-war years and the majority of Britons were reluctant to accept an American as queen consort.

And there were legal objections too :

Wallis's first divorce (in the United States on the grounds of "emotional incompatibility") was not recognised by the Church of England and, if challenged in the English courts, might not have been recognised under English law. At that time the church and English law considered adultery to be the only grounds for divorce. Consequently, under this argument, her second (and third) marriages would have been bigamous and invalid.

If Elizabeth II behaved in an illegal or unconstitutional manner, or become deeply unpopular due to her moral behaviour, she'd be out on her 'ear.

Her Majesty however has proved to have been an exemplary monarch for the last half a century.
Gawd bless you ma'am.

The King just two monarchs ago was given the sack, or forced to abdicate as it is more politely referred to, precisely because too many people thought he was a knob

A very subjective interpretation which doesn't detract from the fact that its still a case of the clear fact that there is no sensible argument in favour of retaining this archaic institution. At best it highlights the fallacy that the Royals are in some way "special", and at worst it is yet another case of the old boy network sweeping things under the table so as to maintain the status quo, the very status quo that very coincidentally benefits them.

There is a very strong argument that as a nation we are severely hampered by class structure and the lack of social mobility that it creates. In my world, I have no problem with people being successful, or wealthy, as long as its through their own efforts. We need more of them as role models IMHO. What I object to really strongly, is this ridiculous notion that an accident of birth by and large determines all of our futures. That notion is perpetuated by the institution of the Royal Family, and for that reason they are the weakest link and we need to say goodbye.

ernie_lynch - Member

You think we live in an advanced democracy ?

It's the people what govern is it ?

How quaint.

No. Isn't that a more preferable state to be in? Don't the obstacles to it need to be removed so that it can be achieved? Isn't the royal family one of these? Anything else about this obvious point that you don't understand?

How obtuse.

Mrs Windsor gives the Royal Assent to all legislation. As she is a part of the political process she should be elected and accountable. she is neither.

Mrs Windsor gives the Royal Assent to all legislation. As she is a part of the political process she should be elected and accountable. she is neither.

Good question. What if she refuses to give the RA to reform of the House of Lords, or a bill divorcing the UK from the EU passed by the partly-elected parliament?

What happens if she refuses?

Apparently according to Ernie she gets fired and sent off to live in splendour in France and/or the Bahamas....... that'll teach her!

What if she refuses to give

Well going by historical precedent, she'll be executed.

Berm Bandit - Member

[b]The King just two monarchs ago was given the sack, or forced to abdicate as it is more politely referred to, precisely because too many people thought he was a knob[/b]

A very subjective interpretation which doesn't detract from the fact that its still a case of the clear fact that there is no sensible argument in favour of retaining this archaic institution.

It's not any sort of interpretation. It was a clear fact which contradicts your false claim that the monarch can't be sacked for acting like a knob.

Whether the monarchy should be retained or not is a completely different issue.

In the same way that Woppit's ludicrous comment which implied that the Queen hasn't got a job needed to be challenged as she has very clearly an extensive and highly time consuming job. Whether this is a worthwhile job or not is also a completely different issue.

If you are going to make the case for the abolition of the monarchy then don't base it on bollocks. Not only will people see straight through it but it suggests that your argument is so weak and inadequate that you are forced to make up for the shortfall by relying on false statements. Which is actually probably the case.

Well said Ernie.

your argument is so weak and inadequate that you are forced to make up for the shortfall by relying on false statements.

You appear to have succinctly summed up the cause of most of the arguments on STW here, I think.

It's not any sort of interpretation. It was a clear fact which contradicts your false claim

Go on then provide the evidence that the Monarch can be sacked for behaving like a knob. I would love to see the bit of legislation that states that. Don't bother, looking because as you well know there isn't any.

As I said all there is, is the wispy and mysterious unwritten constitution which is made up by those in power as they go along and perpetuates the status quo.

Why would you need legislation ? They are just "forced to abdicate". Don't pretend that it can't happen because it clearly can. Despite your false claim that regardless of how big a knob a royal is, the only way to end their rule is by a state funeral.

Blimey. And it all started as a little joke about the Sex Pistols.
😆 @ STW

DezB - Member

😆

[b]We are not amused[/b]

[img] [/img]

The current queen chooses to keep herself busy, meets the people regularly (There is presumably no formal requirement for these duties)and is regarded as a 'good' person. Previous monarchs and some of her close relatives would not necessarily be consideed the same.

The system of having one specially privileged family with ceremonial duties endorsed and funded by the state is an outdated one, extremely wrong and there is no justification for it as far as I can see. The cost or benefit to the taxpayer is an irrelevance.

The masses don't give these things much thought and may well be happy with being unquestioning. What puzzles me is that the people I've spoken to about it generally seem to think that a diamond jubilee is a good thing and that it's fine to have a monarchy, "because they've always been there" -That's hardly a strong case.

There are jokes about multiple generations of a family living on benefits in council houses, but I'm not going to stoop to that sort of level 😉

Don't pretend that it can't happen because it clearly can.

Well no actually, it can't, at least not in the way you describe. The situation with Edward VIII was that he made himself ineligible, in respect of the role of leader of the Church of Engalnd, in much the same way as Charles would have done had he divorced and subsequently married Camilla. That is not the same as being fired for some misdemeanour or other.

History is littered with cases of deranged royals being maintained in situ, George III and Henry VIIIth to name but two. There is also some evidence to suggest that Edward VIIth wasn't playing with a full hand either. Whatever, he was certainly an embaressment for a good bit of his life and definatly was a bit of a knob.

Finally, in answer to this

Why would you need legislation

Now, I've given a clear case to support my assertion. Wheres yours?

My brother's mate put this on the player, at the Silver Jubilee garden party in our back garden, . . .. my dad (RIP) ran upstairs tore it from the player and snapped it in half . . . .lol

Berm Bandit - Member

Don't pretend that it can't happen because it clearly can.

Well no actually, it can't, at least not in the way you describe. The situation with Edward VIII was that he made himself ineligible, in respect of the role of leader of the Church of Engalnd, in much the same way as Charles would have done had he divorced and subsequently married Camilla. That is not the same as being fired for some misdemeanour or other.

History is littered with cases of deranged royals being maintained in situ, George III and Henry VIIIth to name but two. There is also some evidence to suggest that Edward VIIth wasn't playing with a full hand either. Whatever, he was certainly an embaressment for a good bit of his life and definatly was a bit of a knob.

Finally, in answer to this

Why would you need legislation

The reason is self evident, in that it is necessary so that there is a clear route to follow which is inexorable, as opposed to some fantasy in your mind, which may or may not be played out depending on whose self interest is being served at the time.

Now, I've given a clear case to support my assertion. Wheres yours?

Nah mate, I've made my point and you've made yours. I'm not going round in circles anymore - we've already done one full circle. Specially as I can't be any more right than "right", so it's therefore quite pointless. I'll just leave you with a glaring look of disapproval...

[img] ?w=275[/img]

Mr Woppit - Member

ernie_lynch - Member

You think we live in an advanced democracy ?

It's the people what govern is it ?

How quaint.

No. Isn't that a more preferable state to be in? Don't the obstacles to it need to be removed so that it can be achieved? Isn't the royal family one of these? Anything else about this obvious point that you don't understand?

How obtuse.

Mr Woppit - Member
ernie_lynch - Member

You think we live in an advanced democracy ?

It's the people what govern is it ?

How quaint.

No. Isn't that a more preferable state to be in? Don't the obstacles to it need to be removed so that it can be achieved? Isn't the royal family one of these? Anything else about this obvious point that you don't understand?

How obtuse.

If you claim she is worthless and doesn't do anything, why do we need to vote for someone to be worthless and do nothing?

In the same way that Woppit's ludicrous comment which implied that the Queen hasn't got a job needed to be challenged as she has very clearly an extensive and highly time consuming job. Whether this is a worthwhile job or not is also a completely different issue.

Getting dressed up, waving and gurning, travelling abroad for nice holidays at my expense is not a job.

You sidestepping my other point on your tendency to the obtuse?

why do we need to vote for someone to be worthless and do nothing?

We don't. Did I say that? Can't seem to find it...

You sidestepping my other point on your tendency to the obtuse?

Well I didn't answer you at all, so I can hardly be accused of [i]sidestepping[/i] your point .... I ignored you ! 😀

I wonder why.

If you claim she is worthless and doesn't do anything, why do we need to vote for someone to be worthless and do nothing?

How is having a pseudo-divinely-appointed monarch and royal family that are supported through throughout their entire lifetime (Even if the king abdicated because he decided to marry a divorcee in the 1930s) and do as much for "us" as they feel like doing, superior to this?

We are not amused
[img] [/img]

We don't. Did I say that? Can't seem to find it...

Then all is fine we can go about our lives then.

Because we could have some voted-for or even appointed for a fixed term, with the option to extend the 'reign' up to a point.

Like a Prime Minister?

I can't really say I'm too bothered either way.

More people seem to want to keep the monarchy than get rid of it. As we apparently live in a democracy I guees they can all stay until this changes.

Anyway

God bless her and all who sail in her!

Singlespeed_Shep - Member

We don't. Did I say that? Can't seem to find it...

Then all is fine we can go about our lives then.

Can't think why it would be otherwise.

God bless her and all who sail in her!

Ooooh, I don't think that's likely.

Singlespeed_Shep - Member

Because we could have some voted-for or even appointed for a fixed term, with the option to extend the 'reign' up to a point.

Like a Prime Minister?

...but, I take your point that the Prime Minister basically 'runs'/manages the country and agree with you that the queen is unnecessary and we could do without her.

She can keep one of her castles and spend the rest of her days in retirement.

...but, I take your point that the Prime Minister basically 'runs'/manages the country and agree with you that the queen is unnecessary and we could do without her.

Yes I agree on political terms,

But as a symbol of our state, a representative of our nation then no.

a symbol of our state, a representative of our nation

...that's precisely why we need to get rid of them. An unelected individual, born into privilege, should not be symbolic of our state and nation in the 21st century.

...and yet, and yet, lots of people seem quite happy with the situation. They're a funny bunch, the public.

... and lots of people don't. What's your point, caller?

and lots of people don't. What's your point, caller?

If it were put to a vote, then we would in all likely hood have a democratically elected queen

If thats not an oxymoronic statment!

I'm the chap who asked,
"What's the point?"

The public are, inexplicably, happy to have the current constitutional monarchy.

-The public are a funny bunch.

The people may well vote for the queen, but would they vote for King Charles & Queen Camilla, King William & Queen Kate?
...They won't have the choice under the current system.

I think the Windsor woman and what people [i]think[/i] she represents, have become a focal point for those seeking reassurance in the face of threats of all sorts, from Islamic violence to financial insecurity and the slipping of the focus of history from the west to the east.

She's a sort of mammary to which the peasants cling as they re-discover their helpless feudal neediness.

I'd agree that there is something in that. My use of the word "Inexplicable" was the wrong one. It can be explained even if I can't sympathise with the view.

As I posted earlier in the thread, It seem to me that many people don't actually know/think about what the monarchy/royalty/Hereditary Peers and bishops in The Lords etc. actually mean.

There is a lot of ignorance about the issue.

Many do seem to find it impossible to separate these things from some mythical notion of "Britishness". Having a National Anthem with a first verse that talks almost exclusively about God saving the Queen (and allowing her to reign over us, the inferior, common people), rather than saving the country or, heaven forbid, [u]the people[/u], reinforces this situation.

A lot of people seem convinced that this feudal, birth-right system of privilege is [b]better[/b] than having elected/appointed1 head-of-state with some degree of accountability, which I find very difficult to understand.

If it were put to a vote, then we would in all likely hood have a democratically elected queen

Thats far from certain, especially if there were to be an informed debate about the pros and cons. Remember in her lifetime most of her subjects have kicked her, (and us for that matter) into touch, and continue to do so. In case thats not clear 80% of people to whom she was monarch at her coronation no longer recognise her as such.

The people may well vote for the queen, but would they vote for King Charles & Queen Camilla, King William & Queen Kate

Well they voted for King Cameron and Queen Osborne, so their tastes are hardly impeccable...

Well they voted for King Cameron and Queen Clegg, so their tastes are hardly impeccable...

I think you'll find that the electorate voted for their local MPs, and David Cameron, as Prime Minister, wasn't given the keys to a few palaces, castles and counties for his family to enjoy for evermore.

Well they voted for King Cameron and Queen Clegg

That was fast - I ninja edited Clegg...

But my point was that people are easily deceived into tasteless putting of "x"s into boxes...

But my point was that people are easily deceived into tasteless putting of "x"s into boxes...

...as they are easily deceived that a constitutional monarchy is the correct and only way.

Do these people think that republics are somehow not proper countries?

people are easily deceived

Actually the evidence doesn't support that statement.

If you can remeber this, you might also remember that Bernie Grant, Ken Livingstone and Paul Boetang were all absolutely villified by the press throughout the campaign. They were all elected, so its harder to deceive the electorate than you might think.
[img] https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT0uJWq4JuMR5unKoxbJofEt6T7GgakVDW8wkpSqdKl4-29XGEz [/img]

" Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it. "

Can never quite understand why anybody would want to fix something that is not broken.

Or not fix something that is....

I can never understand why people want to maintain the status quo because,
"It's always been done that way"