Britain and the monarchy

[Anarcho-Socialist]

Poll question: Britain and the monarchy

This poll is open to all DUers, British and non-British. Should Britain still have a monarchy, or replace it with a republic? Or should the monarchy simply be reformed to something resembling the 'modern' monarchies of Denmark and Belguim? Also please feel welcome to post any thoughts you'd like to share.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Please educate me.

I am under the impression that the monarchy doesn't have any rule of law and is mostly ceremonial in Britain. Is this true or no?

On edit: I'm also under the impression that many Britains feel like the monarchy is a waste of taxpayer money. True or no?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

2. True exactly

The monarch is simply ceremonial, a lot like the Irish and German presidencies.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Well, in that case, I think it needs to be reformed.

Obviously the money spent could be used towards better things, however, I do feel it's very important to maintain the heritage of a country. You'd be pissing away more than a thousand years of tradition if you just abolish it completely.

[kybob]

4. i beleive it is

the Brits spend an awful lot of money to maintain the Royals in their live style. and they love it. i seriously doubt of the Brits will every get up the balls to relegate the Crown to history, and put the Queen off her reverse welfare.

[gbarford]

7. Yes and no...

Theoretically, the Monarch has all executive power vested in himself or herself, including the power to appoint and dismiss Prime Ministers, power to declare war under the royal prerogative etc., but of course there would be outrage if he or she ever used these powers without the support of the Government and/or Parliament.

In reality, the Monarch will never dismiss a Prime Minister, and only appoints Prime Ministers according to certain convetions, such as the Prime Minister must be a member of the House of Commons, and must command majority support in the House of Commons.

I voted Other, because I think their is still a place for a Monarchy for reasons to do with tourism etc., but they should be removed entirely from having any sort of political power. I think the way to go would be to let the Monarchy continue as a cerimonal figure, but the Monarch as head of state should be replaced with a French semi-presidential system, where the power of the President is dependant on how much support they have in one or either House of Parliament.

Many do feel that the Monarchy is a waste of money, but it is also true to say that tourism etc. that the Monarchy generates makes the difference.

[sweetheart]

8. The monarchy is not purely ceremonial

The queen retains serious powers, including the head of the state
church (church of england), weekly meetings with the prime minister,
the right to dissolve parliament and lots of other things. It is wayyyy
more than ceremonial. It is an unwritten balance of power between
the monarchy and the parliament, where the long standing tradition
is that the queen does not exercise most of those powers.

I am in favour of officially changing things that the monarchy become
officially "out" of any government process, that the whole of british
government be elected. That she serves as a ceremonial head of state
i feel is a brilliant thing, as it takes a huge burden off the prime
minister. And in some circumstances, provides stability in problem
cases, like say america had a ceremonial head of state during the bush
coup 2000, then there would have been no rush to push though a fraudulent
count, and a runoff election could have been held without disturbing
the overall leadership vacuum.

The problem with the existing monarchy is that it enshrines in to law
the very concept that people are not created equal, that some are
born special and have special rights to be different under the law.
This specific problem, sets a precedent that weakens the diversity and
unity of british socieity. The cost of this, like the war in iraq,
is not worth the benefits... tourists will still come to look at the
palaces of the ceremonial monarch without constitutional powers.

The monarchy does a lot of good in its ceremonial role, by bringing
focus and balance to the government's public face, visiting hospitals
schools and social functions that the elected members of government
can stay busy and not distracted visiting funerals, parades and whatnot.

[ThorsHammer]

10. Great second to last paragraph, my thoughts exactly (more below) - n/t

[Ravenseye]

5. Keep It, Reform It

Make it ENTIRELY ceremonial. No powers whatsoever. Get rid of the House of Lords in favor of a truly elected system.

Most importantly quit paying them. They're already insanely rich. Don't pay them anything, and make them pay taxes on their properties.

They can be the royals and live in Buckingham palace, but it's time they stood on their own. Just allowing tours of their palaces would pay for their upkeep.

[ThorsHammer]

6. Dump it

I'm not English, but would find the entire concept inherently offensive. Aren't they basically saying that a tiny group of people is superior just because of who their ancestors were? It's obviously not as harmful as slavery, and I don't want to create a direct comparison, but the underlying principle that some people are in a higher class than others is still there. I'm also not a fan of this "Sir" business. For the most part, it seems to be an unearned title (unlike an MD, PhD, judge, etc), and seems very pompous.

[nickine9]

9. speaking as a brit...

i value them for the unwitting entertainment they continue to give us but too many people seem to take them seriously. when i was a child our next door neighbours would stand to attention every time a member of the royal family was on the TV, a tradition which has sadly faded away along with sending children up chimneys and covering table legs to avoid exciting the servants.

seriously though i think we have more pressing issues to deal with than the future of a bunch on in-bred morons.

[Liberal In Texas]

11. I'm not British...

(but in the interest of full disclosure, I am married to a British woman) and as far as I'm concerned I don't have any business telling another country whether or not they should abolish their royalty.

If it's fine with them, who am I to say about how they manage their society?

I do have a problem with American "Anglophiles" who bow and scrape when the royals visit here. Society dames take courtesying lessons and learn the proper way to address royalty, etc.

I always tell people we had a revolution a couple of hundred years ago so we wouldn't have to do that anymore, so stop it!

[Feathered Fish]

12. Maybe not in Britain

I think that the commonwealth countries should be the first to abolish the Monarchy and make the move to becoming republics. Austrailia has a pretty strong anti-monarch movement and Canada is starting to get the itch. The commonwealth is a very archaic idea that harkens back to British colonialism.

[Matilda]

13. Being realistic, I vote for reform.

I don't think there is a serious republican movement in Britian at
this time, nor will there be during the life of the present Queen.
But after that, who knows, much will depend on how Charles handles
the job, and how he handles his personal life.

The Queen doesn't really have the power she appears to have, because
she will never exercise the power that is hers officially. But the
royals do have enormous privileges, and I don't think it's fitting
for these times. It was quite a fight, for example, to get the
Queen to agree to pay income tax. And even today, Buckingham Palace
is exempt from such laws as equal opportunity of employment - you
won't see any black faces to the fore amongst the pages, footmen,
etc., when in fact I think Royalty should lead by example. And
anyway, why shouldn't the titular head of the country be bound by
the same laws as everyone else?

For myself, as an Australian, although I come from largely British
stock and was raised to be a royalist, I'm firmly in the Australian
republican camp, as is my English husband.