In 21st Century Britain, Do We Need A Monarch? Did We Ever...?

  • In the 21st century, do we need a monarch? 7

    1. Yes (2) 29%
    2. No (3) 43%
    3. Don't know (0) 0%
    4. Don't care (2) 29%

    I have no beef with the Queen at all. She has done great service for our country. But I'm not so sure about the next generation....

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Agree about the present Queen. However - look what Harry has just done. His actions should signal the end of the monarchy which you don't need and trigger the movement for a new dispensation. If a Prince can bring an Afro-American model into the line of succession then it's time to say goodbye. The last thing you need is a multi-racial monarchy. His actions will probably finish the Queen off with stress. How she has managed to endure some of the things that have happened in her later reign is a credit to her character, but this will surely finish her off. Harry should be exiled to a desert island. He's a stupid pinhead.

  • I don't care about the skin colour of a future Head of State, but I do care whether I remain a "subject" of that future State or a "citizen." I would prefer being a citizen rather than a being a subject.


    If Harry wanted to run for election for a future president, than that should be his choice. There would be a little less time for orgies in Las Vegas though...

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Did we ever? Probably, democracy couldn't have worked back then. Do we now? I'd say no to introducing one if we didn't have it but since we do have it, they have been pretty good and pretty lucrative then let's stick with it. It'll be Charles then William and not Harry but all are decent people so long may the monarchy continue. However if there was a huge campaign against them I'm not passionate about them to fight it.

  • I'd personally wouldn't launch a campaign against them, I don't have strong feelings either way on the matter. But I do believe the monarchy is past its sell by date. And once the Queen is gone, it should be retired.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Presidents and Prime Ministers are not racially stamped. The monarch is. The monarch is, historically, the representative of the tribe and finally of the nation but as so many nations became diverse ethnically, this need to have a chief or a king or queen should have fallen away. (Cromwell did try.)


    I live in a country that declared itself a Republic and was very successful. Rhodesia declared UDI and was very successful. Patriotism is very strong in countries where every citizen is free to do whatever he or she can. When that freedom is curtailed, there will be trouble.


    Monarchies encourage the idea of higher order levels of citizenry. This doesn't mix well with the liberty modern society demands.


    Even long ago when Norwegian Kings took over from English ones and before that Saxon ones trounced Celtic ones there was this aggro about being ruled by "foreign" monarchs. If you were politically free of this, you'd be better off, but of course it would mean opening a few windows that haven't let light or air into Britain since ancient times.


    Good luck. I am hoping you will some day be free of both the aristocratic hierarchy and the Marxist left.


    My English grandfather detested the monarchy, incidentally. I think I have his genes in that respect. I would only acknowledge an Anglo-Saxon regent and that would have to be in an Anglo-Saxon kingdom. And he'd have to do his job or I'd call for his stupid head.

  • I'm going to disagree with everybody. I think we should keep our monarchy, not in it's present form but we should have a non political head of state as we have always had and not an elected one. I'm a great believer in tradition and I believe traditions can help unite a nation in difficult times. Not only that, it's our traditions and customs which makes us a nation because it is something that we as a people have in common and it's a common ancestry that unites us as a people. Who would want a Blair or Hollande as a head of state?


    Let's keep the monarch and the heir to the throne and all our traditions. The other royals can get sinecures from companies who want the kudos of having the letters HRH in front of the name of their titular chairman or one of their board members.

  • Leaving aside the dated, offensive wailing from the 'Britain is a White, Christian, Country' [the accident of my skin colour is less important to me than the accident of birth that is my spinal disability] one has to wonder why the British cannot be trusted to elect a head of state. He or she doesn't have to be a politician or political figure - recent Irish Presidents have included University professors and the like.

    Compare that example with that set by the pseudonymous House of Windsor, more specifically the next in succession. Charles could be a disaster for the very idea of British Monarchy. He is known to be far from neutral, politically, which could undermine his position both as Head of State and Head of the Commonwealth. Similarly, his adultery with his second wife is a potential source of schism within the Anglican Communion, of which he surely cannot be Head.

    The younger generation seem little more than Hello Magazine celebrities, with nothing to recommend them but good PR, itself often contradictory. See, in particular, Harry's confused image as the 'sensitive' son of Saint Diana, the glamourous party boy and the military he-man. Even this his brother has to be held back from, lest the direct heir be found wanting, or do anything remotely controversial.

  • I'm a member of Ireland's political board P.ie, so some of their republican tendencies have rubbed off on me, but I quite agree Plastic, a simple election say every 5-7 years for the position of president (or whatever we call it) I don't think would cause too much harm.


    I'm glad you mentioned this now, because the subject is back in the news again with Prince Harry's interview in the American magazine saying he doesn't reckon any current member of the royal family wants to be monarch when the queen dies. If they don't want it, and if we don't want it, why bother with a future royal family at all?


    I don't mind Charles, some of his thinking over environmental things have proven to be correct, but they're kind of drowned out when he travels everywhere by personal helicopter which is not so good on the environment.


    Don't have a particular issue with William or Harry either, although I agree there is a lot of PR going on there. One minute Harry is the action man in Afghanistan (well, manning the telephones) next he is kind and caring to the mentally ill and injured servicemen. Good on him for that. But then next, he is having gang bangs in a Las Vegas hotel room and his crown jewels are on display for all to see.


    In other words, the royal family are no more different to anyone else, so in that vein, would it not be better to just have one person, preferably elected, as head of state, rather than a whole nest of them?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • He seems to forget he has a lifestyle and wealth that the rest of us can only dream about. Is that due to his academic abilities...?:rolleyes:

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • "I just want to be an ordinary person" always makes me laugh. They wouldn't be that keen if they stepped off the useful contacts level and tried to make it in the world on their own. It's nasty down here with the bog people, Harry.

  • If they were down with the normal people they'd be doing very mundane jobs. None of them are the sharpest tools in the box. Maybe we could also get rid of the title "Royal Correspondant" None of them are royal, court correspondant, fawning lackey, brown noser but not royal.

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in red it is moderation. Take note.

  • I want to get hold of Harry's interview if its available, but if the royals are publicly saying they don't want the top job, they are in effect slitting their own throats. It's the position of the royal family and all their pleasant ancestors that has "given" them that wealth, while the common man was raped and pillaged by them.


    I wish to accommodate Harry and his wishes. If the royals don't want to be royal, that's fine by me. He'll then have more time to gangbang  globe trot around the world.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • If they were down with the normal people they'd be doing very mundane jobs. None of them are the sharpest tools in the box. Maybe we could also get rid of the title "Royal Correspondant" None of them are royal, court correspondant, fawning lackey, brown noser but not royal.

    You sound like my grandfather ^^

  • Prince Harry was once so disillusioned with being part of the Royal Family that he decided he "wanted out".


    Having considered giving up his title, he finally decided he should remain and "work out a role for myself".


    Speaking to the Mail on Sunday, the prince - who is fifth in line to the throne - said being in the Army was "the best escape I've ever had".


    And he said the royals "don't want to be just a bunch of celebrities but instead use our role for good".

    Prince Harry wants out

    =====


    All the papers over the last few days have picked up on Harry's comments in the American magazine and fill the front pages of the Sunday papers too.


    Andrew Marr has just commented that once you get know for being outspoken you get "squeezed like a lemon" for more comments until you say something really silly.


    Has he just, or will do, end the Royal Family with his outspoken comments.


    If they don't want the money and privilege of their positions, I am sure the People will be happy to relieve them of their positions.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • :)


    There has always been rumblings, well especially coming out of Charles' camp, that the rest of royals never want the top job when the Queen is gone. Now, it's out in the open.


    They don't want the top job, they should be eagerly obliged on this.^^

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Harry's former girlfriend Chelsea took one look at all that bull and said she simply wouldn't be able to oblige them and left. If he agreed with her he would have followed her out. He didn't, though ...

  • So you reckon he doesn't mean what he's saying in the magazine LW? He's just having a little bit of a "feeling sorry for yourself phase" and he'll return to the usual gangbanging globetrotting soon.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I was thinking just that myself.


    If he became one of he common folk, there would be a lot less interest in him.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Oh, noooo,


    I would always prefer someone elected, at least you get the option to get rid of them after a time.

    Well I would much prefer any of the Royals, ( even Andrew!!),

    All Andrew has done is fill his own pockets with his personal business dealings in the MIddle East using the royal name to do it, so he would not be my first choice to take over from the Queen.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Oh, noooo,


    I would always prefer someone elected, at least you get the option to get rid of them after a time.

    All Andrew has done is fill his own pockets with his personal business dealings in the MIddle East using the royal name to do it, so he would not be my first choice to take over from the Queen.

    You are still confused I see.....the Executive is formed from the UK 'elected' assembly.....the Royal's 'power' is merely 'constitutional'....in other words, they have no powers of governance....whereas scumbag Blair DID!! I wouldn't want Blair to be identified with anything British....but in any event, as has been pointed out before - the British head of Government is not an 'elected' position....... and nor is it technically 'democratic' either.

  • Oh, noooo,


    I would always prefer someone elected, at least you get the option to get rid of them after a time.

    All Andrew has done is fill his own pockets with his personal business dealings in the MIddle East using the royal name to do it, so he would not be my first choice to take over from the Queen.

    I would have thought that Harry would be top of the majority of UK citizens's list......but Harry has made it clear that HE doesn't want it......and I would have thought that Harry would be the peoples first choice by a mile!.....but what a comment to make about 'filling one's pockets' after the 'elected' Blair' performance!!

    Edited once, last by Stevlin ().

  • William and Kate are fine. Harry is a maverick. Kate is a beautiful, elegant replacement for the typically 1980s Diana. But the fact that it takes a genuine commoner to be regal today spells the end of the supremacy ethic for monarchs. Harry's recent dip into emoting is just not done. He is over egging his little pudding, whatever it might be.

  • During the 80s, the two daughters in law were brought in to modernise a dying institution. Anne, in contrast, was portrayed as an unglamorous, out of touch aristo. When the 80s marriages fell apart, she was suddenly transformed into a selfless, humble, charity worker. Andy went from 'war hero' to useless freeloader. Now, with Anne an Andy's children frankly irrelevant, the 'talent pool' is too small. The media can't even make their minds up about Harry, lest Wills turns out to be a boob.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment.