Why On Earth Would Anyone Want To Replace The Monarchy With A President?

[dave50]

Watching all the tradition, pomp and ceremony on display following the death of the Queen and even more o come when King Charles coronation, why anyone want to ditch all that? It would be madness. There is nothing else like it in the world, something to be very proud of. Its worth every penny and if someone starts talking about how many doctors and nurses for our "beloved" NHS would it pay for I think I will scream.

[burlyshirley1]

I agree with you dave 100%. I am very proud of the send off we are giving to our beloved Queen Elizabeth, she deserves it all and I am in awe of Charles going through all this pomp and ceremony on a daily basis whilst obviously grieving deeply for his dearest Mum.

I also agree with choux at 14:40, wholeheartedly.

A President - NO THANKS !!!

[ToraToraTora]

jno 14:34, yes but the current monarch is not a descendent of them, the line ended when Harold Godwinson was appointed by the Witan in 1066, following the death of Edward the Confessor with no clear heir. William I claimed the throne shortly after, all following monarchs are in his line.

[jno]

yes he is. He's the 33rd great grandson of Alfred. William I and Edward the Confessor were cousins. Like most changes of dynasty the crown didn't pass out of the extended family: Elizabeth I had no children, Anne had no surviving children, but the crown went to cousins. There's a chart here - barely legible but it looks right

https://britroyals.com/royaltree.asp

[roadman]

god save the king

[New Judge]

//because the monarchy has grotesque consequences…//

Which are what, exactly?

…//i have a very hard time believing that is actually the case in practise… the monarch is highly influential behind closed doors…//

At present there is ample evidence to suggest that “The Blob” (which means different things to different people, but by most definitions seems to include senior civil servants and other “influencers”) is quite successful at thwarting government policy in some important areas. I’d prefer to see that stopped whilst allowing the miniscule influence (if any) a Monarch may have over that policy.

[jourdain2]

I am not particularly a monarchist, but i worked out many years ago that we were better off with one than with the sectarian hell of a presidency. I think that King Charles is absolutely correct in his desire to slim the monarchy considerably and make it a 'working' one.

In the last resort the Monarch can save us from a dictatorship and that function alone means it worth keeping. There are also so many other ways it helps the country - influence over other countries being just one, the Commonwealth, the tourism revenues, the magnificent traditions of 'pomp and circumstance' and the sense of being an integral part of history are just a few.

[jno]

///the Monarch can save us from a dictatorship///

not necessarily. King Victor Emanuel made Mussolini prime minister. Hirohito was involved in Japan's war policies (he had to renounce his divinity after the war). Leopold surrendered Belgium to the Nazis against the advice of his ministers. And Edward VIII's Nazi sympathies are well known.

[Ellipsis]

I have bucketfuls of respect for the Royal Family, and an observation ... when somebody's entire life is mapped out for them before they're even born, no choice, no free will, they are obliged to follow a pre-determined path and are indoctrinated from childhood into that path ... that sounds like slavery. Some seem to think it's OK for the royals because of the trappings of wealth (and power - although we're disputing that one, apparently), but really ... it makes no sense in the modern world. It's slavery for the rich. It's like they're the "pets" of the nation, pampered yet imprisoned by the rules. The Queen lived through a time of immense social change, change that's still ongoing. It's hard to imagine that, by George's children's time, we'd still be willing to force people through such medieval tradition without the medieval benefits they once enjoyed.

[Untitled]

It is not strictly speaking true to say that they have no choice ellipsis… people have turned down crowns before. They accept a life of ease and comfort in exchange for becoming the face of an ancient and historically quite violent and exploitative institution

[Ellipsis]

It's hard (but not impossible) to turn it down if you've been indoctrinated from birth, Untitled ...

[Untitled]

“ Which are what, exactly? ”

a culture of sycophancy toward one family
privilege based on bloodline alone
power without accountability

if we could keep the monarchy without those things then I’d probably be in favour of it because I do like its quirkiness.

perhaps we keep the monarchy but instead of making it hereditary the monarch is decided by a lottery of everyone in the country aged over 30 (or whatever) and swapped out every x years equal to a roll of a ten-sided die at the beginning of the new monarch’s reign… then we’d have loads of quirkiness and character and none of the drawbacks! ;)

[Untitled]

“ It's hard (but not impossible) to turn it down if you've been indoctrinated from birth, Untitled ...”

i can think of harder things…

granted elizabeth was only in her 20s (technically adult yes but… well most of us are still idiots at 26) but the king is old enough to think for himself!

[mushroom25]

// the monarch is decided by a lottery of everyone in the country aged over 30 (or whatever) and swapped out every x years equal to a roll of a ten-sided die at the beginning of the new monarch’s reign //

......with the very real possibility of ending up with a complete wonk as our Head of State?

[Untitled]

what’s the problem if they are powerless?

[Untitled]

if we get a wonk now (and let’s face it that’s a real possibility) then we’re stuck with them for decades… in the Untitled Magic Die Kingdom the maximum is one! can change it down to a six-sided die if that’s too long!

[jno]

indeed, had Edward VIII not married outside the family he'd have been on the throne until 1972.

[davebro]

That the monarch gets a "red box" every day & meets the PM weekly I find it VERY hard to believe they wield little or no political influence.

Maybe the queen used it wisely & understatedly. I expect Charles to be a wholly different kettle of fish.

[Untitled]

further to what I said earlier...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/13/prince-andrew-epstein-sexual-abuse-investigation

despite his public assurances that he would co-operate with the investigation into Epstein and Maxwell it is fairly obvious Prince Andrew did nothing of the sort.... even invoking the mutual legal assistance treaty did not succeed at getting him to interview... he and his lawyers threw everything they could at avoiding it.

obviously we cannot prove hypotheticals for certain but I think it extremely doubtful that Andrew would have enjoyed such protection if he didn't happen to be queen elizabeth's son...

[Atheist]

Looking at this ancestry chart, the Queen seems to have mainly descended from 'foreigners'.

https://www.geni.com/projects/Ancestors-of-Queen-Elizabeth-II/13383

I suspect that if you traced back a thousand years you'd find a bit of royal blood in everybody in the UK.

[Atheist]

"Elizabeth bears lineage from, amongst others, Armenian, Arab, British, Chinese, Cuman, Danish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Monégasque, Norwegian, Old Prussian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Swedish, Ukrainian, and Yugoslavian ethnicities." - A quote from the above link.