i hope charles gets to the throne before will (96)

I would have thought that given more people turn out for a royal wedding than they do for protests about serious political issues then I would say that they were probably more democratically legitimate that most of the things were expected to tolerate.

Edited 14 Nov 11, 5:34 PM by Abraxus

(actually maybe not such a bad idea)

Especially if we could always vote one of the tossers out on a Saturday night.

You think those are good things? Especially given the lack of any real freedom to do with them what you please? That's thinking along the lines of people who think winning the lottery and spending huge amounts of money will make them happy. What they usually find is that while money can make it easier to be happy, it tends to be the freedom it can buy you that helps make you happy, and even then it is only a contributing factor.

And if they still don't like it of course, they can always quit. Funny how few of them actually do

That's due to having a lifetime of training to get used to it, and that old fashioned value a sense of duty. Deeply unfashionable now, I know, but some people still have it. Its why public services haven't completely fallen apart yet.

I doubt it would convince me.

I should be clear, I don't really give a stuff about the royal family, I went out and did something fun on Royal Wedding day, I'd go out of my way to avoid meeting them if they came to my workplace, for instance, but I still think they do the job they do very well, and it works. Which is what really matters.

see i think that is a consolatory myth we tell ourselves when we fail to win the lottery (again).

perhaps we could settle on the truth being somewhere half way in between. not entirely bloody lovely, but not wholly a big can of shit either.

on balance then, probably still not worth the extravagant second palaces and triplicate valets.

i was raised to be poor but happy, and you wouldn't find me turning down a winning ticket

the point about public duty is that it's just that, a duty. if that's solely why they're doing such an otherwise horrible job surely we can take away the fleet of bespoke bentleys, all the wild swans in the land and a residential staff of more than a hundred and they'll keep going right? they can make do with £15k pa and all the public spiritedness you can handle, like any of the 250,000 odd teaching assistants in England.

then i'll have to work on my skillz

maybe. but will it work when charlie gets in? and if we have to skip someone to make it work, how does that count as working?

also, since when was "good enough" reason not to reach for "better"? (with apologies for sounding like a honda advert)

Edited 15 Nov 11, 9:31 AM by shit_sub

Hell, I couldn't care if the head of state was appointed. It's not so much that I want to vote for a figurehead position, I oppose the idea that someone is better than everyone else because of their birth.

Why do you assume it would be a politician, when the role is primarily a figurehead one? Just look at the recent Cambridge chancellor election, it ended up being between Sainsbury and Brian Blessed, with the one "political" candidate getting few votes.

I don't dispute that one of the reasons it will be hard to end the monarchy due to disputes over what the new system should be (s was the problem in the Australian referendum, and why switching from FPTP will be likely impossible for UK General Elections). But that doesn't mean I'm going to support, respect, or give any other kind of appreciation in anyway, to the monarchy.

For tourism, see http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%2... . In brief, there are many things that beat the monarchy for tourism, including Windsor Legoland, but we don't make a Lego man our head of state.

But we should ask, what work do they do for this anyway? I've been to the palace. Was Prince Charles there to greet me? Was Her Maj working behind the tills in the gift shop? Of course not. Even if one believes we should base our constitution and head of state on what gets some tourists on (an odd set of priorities, if you ask me), let's not pretend it's the royal family themselves doing the work. People come for the institution, which is owned by us nationally.

Ending the hereditary monarchy wouldn't end the history, the buildings - people would still come for these things, just as Egypt doesn't need to have modern day Pharaohs and slavery.

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

Edited 15 Nov 11, 10:02 PM by emark

Putting that aside, he was way ahead of the pack on Green issues,the single most important matter on the planet. despite vilification ("talking to the trees" etc) and sneers he stuck to his guns. Cannot the Antis at least give him credit for that ?

I really do not think it is racist/nationalist to mention the simple fact that some 25% of us have Plantagenet bloodlines. It means that about 15 million of us are one family. Another thing - no such thing as a "racially pure" Brit anyway.In fact,to be vewwy politikaly korekt we should rejoice that the Windsors have Scots,Welsh,Irish,English,Greek,German,Russian,Span ish,Portugese,Moorish,French etc blood and an ancestry not far from Mohammed.They are probably the most multicultural family we have.Also, you do not have to go very far back to get working class ancestry with them.Plenty of websites.I have little computer facility so DIY.

Let not the sun go down upon your wrath,but remember,things are not what they seem,neither are they otherwise.

Edited 15 Nov 11, 10:56 PM by Cassius

Per mg's comment. The decision isn't between monarch and not-monarchy, it has to be between the specific alternative and the current.

The Lords is a good example of this, the cry against unelected peers, was louder than any cry for a specific sensible alternative, and as a result we have a toothless, appointee system that is quite possibly worse.

I don't *like* the monarchy, however I do *like* the fact that there is an 'in principal' legitimate and legal veto against parliament, that can be exercised should the need arise. So please convince me, what specific system would you advocate that gives me that same comfort that a head of state is unlikely to be co-opted by the party elect.

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

My Grandma had a pair of boots, my Grandpa had some too: they met some skinheads yesterday and kicked them black and blue.
Salad is a dish best served cold.

ok, accepting first of all that it's right and proper to have a good idea for how to replace something you want to tear down, rather than just a desire to tear it down.

but

that doesn't invalidate the latter. it doesn't void it or cancel it out in any way. you can look at something palpably wrong and say it is wrong without creating a moral imperative to suggest a "right", and without undermining the correctness of your initial statement. it might sound destructive and childish, yes, but the opposite sounds bourgeois and reactionary

if you agree with us that there *could* be something better, come join us in a dialogue to create it.

how are they doing a bad job, currently? -- genuine question

Q: what could be worse than a (figure)head of state co-opted by the party elect?

A: a (figure)head of state convinced of his own ideas and willing to try and implement them...

Edited 16 Nov 11, 7:32 AM by shit_sub