King Charles III era now begins!
Discussion
rodericb said:
A gilded cage containing a person (or persons) who are trained from birth to fulfill the role isn't such a crazy way to end up with someone taking on such a role.
you raise an important point about the training and support and guidance provided to the role holder that might be missing in an elected system or that might result in an inevitable “deep state” of support that is consistent between different role holders.rodericb said:
To think of it another way, imagine the personalities who end up in positions such as president, prime minister - their journey to the position and how long it takes and how long they're their. A gilded cage containing a person (or persons) who are trained from birth to fulfill the role isn't such a crazy way to end up with someone taking on such a role.
That’s the only way to think of it IMHO.Presidents don’t get spend millions of other peoples money to live a life dedicated to public service, like a missionary.
They do it for the power and money they can get in the knowledge that it’s a short term gig.
PBDirector said:
MC Bodge said:
As in other countries, the PM could remain as the Head of government and "running the country", as now. The Monarch/honorary president is just a figurehead.
i suspect the queen was more than a notional figurehead but i think the idea of an inherited role doesn’t fit modern times - how about we introduce an elected monarchy role with a generation (20-25 years?) term limit…We don't need a monarch, although some of the surprisingly personal and highly emotional rhetoric on the other thread suggests that some people do need something to look up to.
Hol said:
That’s the only way to think of it IMHO.
Presidents don’t get spend millions of other peoples money to live a life dedicated to public service, like a missionary.
They do it for the power and money they can get in the knowledge that it’s a short term gig.
We have a PM. If we became a Republic like Eire, we wouldn't have a US style president.Presidents don’t get spend millions of other peoples money to live a life dedicated to public service, like a missionary.
They do it for the power and money they can get in the knowledge that it’s a short term gig.
Why can some people not comprehend this?
Hol said:
MC Bodge said:
Hol said:
MC Bodge said:
Major revisions are surely now required to royalty and monarchy?
As others have said, the concept is an anachronism. If it was introduced as a new idea now, I cannot imagine that many of the people who are currently in awe of the royals would be in favour of it.
QE2 was a remarkable (and unnecessarily dutiful, really) individual, but that was more by good luck than due to the system of monarchy.
If you complied with historic agreements I am sure they would love the idea.As others have said, the concept is an anachronism. If it was introduced as a new idea now, I cannot imagine that many of the people who are currently in awe of the royals would be in favour of it.
QE2 was a remarkable (and unnecessarily dutiful, really) individual, but that was more by good luck than due to the system of monarchy.
They live in a gilded cage now, with their entire day planned out for them as a series of meetings, visits and correspondence.
If you insisted of giving back the entire crown estate portfolio and told them they could sit home and watch television every night, I’m sure they would bite your hand off.
Who would run the government though? I guess you would need to keep the prime minister and cabinet in place as the new president would be busy all day doing all the visits, letters and charity stuff on behalf of the republic.
He would also need a big White House for entertaining, his own staff to organise the presidential activity and some public money to cover his expenses and salary.
Win win… apart from the taxpayer.
It may have passed you by, but not every republic has the US or French systems.
As in other countries, the PM could remain as the Head of government and "running the country", as now. The Monarch/honorary president is just a figurehead.
I’m sure you have thought everything through in detail before proposing your idea. So, how do you propose to fund the new presidential office?
The monarchy is funded from part of the profits from the crown estate, under the historic terms of that agreement. You won’t be able to use that money.
MC Bodge said:
Hol said:
That’s the only way to think of it IMHO.
Presidents don’t get spend millions of other peoples money to live a life dedicated to public service, like a missionary.
They do it for the power and money they can get in the knowledge that it’s a short term gig.
We have a PM. If we became a Republic like Eire, we wouldn't have a US style president.Presidents don’t get spend millions of other peoples money to live a life dedicated to public service, like a missionary.
They do it for the power and money they can get in the knowledge that it’s a short term gig.
Why can some people not comprehend this?
Let me ask the same question in another way.
Who, in your utopian society is going to do all the visits, correspondence and meetings that the monarchy does today, when you talke all that away?
We have both said it won’t be the PM, and now you are also saying it won’t be a president elect, funded by the state.
So who will do it? And back to the unanswered question, who will fund it, if not the crown estate purse.
Edited by Hol on Friday 9th September 08:49
Randy Winkman said:
I'm still not convinced we even need a head of state.
It's a view shared by many but one that I suspect will be refined over the coming weeks and months.The notion that you don't know what you've got until it's gone appears to hold true at the moment. The number of people claiming to be ambivalent to or anti-monarchy reporting just how sad they are is telling.
The Queen has demonstrated that behind the temporary ebbs and flows of political argument and the divisions this creates across society, economic turbulence and all those other day to day issues that take up much of our thinking time, behind it all is still a brilliant country that we should all be proud of.
We desperately need to bring the divisions in this country closer together and focus more on what is a common goal. And I think the Coronation could well be the catalyst for this.
StevieBee said:
We desperately need to bring the divisions in this country closer together and focus more on what is a common goal. And I think the Coronation could well be the catalyst for this.
I’m not sure a load of pomp, ceremony and privilege is going to heal divisions when the cost of living is going up massively…CheesecakeRunner said:
PBDirector said:
how about we introduce an elected monarchy role with a generation (20-25 years?) term limit…
Imagine then, someone such as Johnson being elected into that role?It’s a cliche, but anyone who wants to do that job, shouldn’t be allowed to.
Its fascinating how many people commenting on the Queen's death are talking about her / the monarchy as being the physical respresentation of the UK - the continuity, the identity, the history, the rock etc. The Monarchy transcends Politics and I for one value that regardless of what it costs (and the cost per head of population is minuscule).
Just look at the state of our Politics, or the state of US Politics. It is in a terrible and depressing state. Jobbing, power hungry chancers all climbing the slippery pole, equally as detached from people's everyday life as you might consider the Royals.
There's a lot to be said for having that continuous backdrop and continuity of identity that is beyond and outside politics, while the revolving door of mediocrity in Government come and go.
The Queen has been utterly brilliant. Charles appears to be a sensible head. William is showing all the signs of having many of the characteristics of his Grandmother. I think we'll be 'safe' as the Monarchy evolve at the pace it should - i.e., not blowing with the winds of fashion and short-termism - to reflect modern Britain over the next 40 or 50 years. I'd maybe have a different view if the line of succession was full of loons.
The question is very much one of viewing the continuity of our long and proud history though the lens of 21st century popularist short-termism. i believe that carries a lot of danger of binning our historical sense of identity on the basis of transient fashionable opinion. That can only lead to regret long term.
Just look at the state of our Politics, or the state of US Politics. It is in a terrible and depressing state. Jobbing, power hungry chancers all climbing the slippery pole, equally as detached from people's everyday life as you might consider the Royals.
There's a lot to be said for having that continuous backdrop and continuity of identity that is beyond and outside politics, while the revolving door of mediocrity in Government come and go.
The Queen has been utterly brilliant. Charles appears to be a sensible head. William is showing all the signs of having many of the characteristics of his Grandmother. I think we'll be 'safe' as the Monarchy evolve at the pace it should - i.e., not blowing with the winds of fashion and short-termism - to reflect modern Britain over the next 40 or 50 years. I'd maybe have a different view if the line of succession was full of loons.
The question is very much one of viewing the continuity of our long and proud history though the lens of 21st century popularist short-termism. i believe that carries a lot of danger of binning our historical sense of identity on the basis of transient fashionable opinion. That can only lead to regret long term.
Edited by biggles330d on Friday 9th September 08:48
Edited by biggles330d on Friday 9th September 08:48
biggles330d said:
Its fascinating how many people commenting on the Queen's death are talking about her / the monarchy as being the physical respresentation of the UK - the continuity, the identity, the history, the rock etc. The Monarchy transcends Politics and I for one value that regardless of what it costs (and the cost per head of population is minuscule).
Just look at the state of our Politics, or the state of US Politics. It is in a terrible and depressing state. Jobbing, power hungry chancers all climbing the slippery pole, equally as detached from people's everyday life as you might consider the Royals.
There's a lot to be said for having that continuous backdrop and continuity of identity that is beyond and outside politics, while the revolving door of mediocrity in Government come and go.
The Queen has been utterly brilliant. Charles appears to be a sensible head. William is showing all the signs of having many of the characteristics of his Grandmother. I think we'll be 'safe' as the Monarchy evolve at the pace it should - i.e., not blowing with the winds of fashion and short-termism - to reflect modern Britain over the next 40 or 50 years. I'd maybe have a different view if the line of succession was full of loons.
The question is very much one of viewing the continuity of our long and proud history though the lens of 21st century popularist short-termism. i believe that carries a lot of danger of binning our historical sense of identity on the basis of transient fashionable opinion. That can only lead to regret long term.
Biggles; thanks for a very sensible summing up. Agree wholeheartedly!Just look at the state of our Politics, or the state of US Politics. It is in a terrible and depressing state. Jobbing, power hungry chancers all climbing the slippery pole, equally as detached from people's everyday life as you might consider the Royals.
There's a lot to be said for having that continuous backdrop and continuity of identity that is beyond and outside politics, while the revolving door of mediocrity in Government come and go.
The Queen has been utterly brilliant. Charles appears to be a sensible head. William is showing all the signs of having many of the characteristics of his Grandmother. I think we'll be 'safe' as the Monarchy evolve at the pace it should - i.e., not blowing with the winds of fashion and short-termism - to reflect modern Britain over the next 40 or 50 years. I'd maybe have a different view if the line of succession was full of loons.
The question is very much one of viewing the continuity of our long and proud history though the lens of 21st century popularist short-termism. i believe that carries a lot of danger of binning our historical sense of identity on the basis of transient fashionable opinion. That can only lead to regret long term.
I just hope that Charles keeps his mouth shut and remembers what happened to Charles 1 and 2....
MC Bodge said:
Major revisions are surely now required to royalty and monarchy?
As others have said, the concept is an anachronism. If it was introduced as a new idea now, I cannot imagine that many of the people who are currently in awe of the royals would be in favour of it.
QE2 was a remarkable (and unnecessarily dutiful, really) individual, but that was more by good luck than due to the system of monarchy.
I'm more Royalist than most, but - As others have said, the concept is an anachronism. If it was introduced as a new idea now, I cannot imagine that many of the people who are currently in awe of the royals would be in favour of it.
QE2 was a remarkable (and unnecessarily dutiful, really) individual, but that was more by good luck than due to the system of monarchy.
I think he will shrink it down to be more in line with the European monarchies, the only ones we'll ever really hear about are going to be the Charlies, Camilla, William, Kate and their kids. The rest will just appear at weddings and funerals.
I also think the foreign countries who have him as the head of state will use this as a reason to swap to being a republic. It's all well and good having a foreign head of state due to historical reasons, but to change to a NEW foreign head of state doesn't seem in keeping with the modern world.
Here is a question for the royalists. If she was such a great women why did she let Andrew off so lightly. What he was involved in as as bad as it gets yet clearly had no guilt and the Queen didn't exactly condemn him?
She expressed very old fashioned views, looked down on people? How does that equal a great person. A great person to me is someone that does 70 hours plus a week for no thanks, helping people as best as they can. Millions of them out there
She expressed very old fashioned views, looked down on people? How does that equal a great person. A great person to me is someone that does 70 hours plus a week for no thanks, helping people as best as they can. Millions of them out there
Edited by Ouroboros on Friday 9th September 09:19
NerveAgent said:
CheesecakeRunner said:
PBDirector said:
how about we introduce an elected monarchy role with a generation (20-25 years?) term limit…
Imagine then, someone such as Johnson being elected into that role?It’s a cliche, but anyone who wants to do that job, shouldn’t be allowed to.
Ouroboros said:
Here is a question for the royalists. If she was such a great women why did she let Andrew off so lightly. What he was involved in as as bad as it gets yet clearly had no guilt and the Queen didn't exactly condemn him?
Is that a serious question or are you just bitter that not everyone agrees with your personal opinion?I Like Charles, he seems like an interesting man, with reasoned opinions on stuff, I like his apparent passion for causes he seems to believe in. He is meant to be a really nice guy, I used to work with 32 Sqn RAF, it was interesting they HATED Gordon Brown, HATED him, apparently the most rude aloof man in the world.
Is the monarchy perfect? No.
Is it better than the grasping clowns, on both sides of the house, we have in politics? God yes. Imagine almost having that evil old
corbyn as the embodiment of our nation. Angela Raynor, Diane Abbot, Boris.
Is the monarchy perfect? No.
Is it better than the grasping clowns, on both sides of the house, we have in politics? God yes. Imagine almost having that evil old
corbyn as the embodiment of our nation. Angela Raynor, Diane Abbot, Boris. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff