Don't deceive yourselves. Were Britain, by some mischance, to become a republic, and were the ex-Princess Royal to be proposed as a non-political President, she would most probably be elected. But she seems to be far too sensible to accept the post.
Maybe, but if (as one would hope) the President's duties were to be largely ceremonial, the lady concerned would probably carry them out extremely well.
I would like a president on the Irish model, be we are - or at least aspire to be - a democracy - and I don’t think it’s credible to argue there is public support to end the monarchy. A more achievable goal might be a slimmed down system on the Norwegian model.
I would like a president on the Irish model, be we are - or at least aspire to be - a democracy - and I don’t think it’s credible to argue there is public support to end the monarchy. A more achievable goal might be a slimmed down system on the Norwegian model.
Indeed it might - and not only Norway, but Sweden, Denmark, and The Netherlands all spring to mind.
I would like a president on the Irish model, be we are - or at least aspire to be - a democracy - and I don’t think it’s credible to argue there is public support to end the monarchy. A more achievable goal might be a slimmed down system on the Norwegian model.
I am con tent with Her Majesty and her descendants
I would like a president on the Irish model, be we are - or at least aspire to be - a democracy - and I don’t think it’s credible to argue there is public support to end the monarchy. A more achievable goal might be a slimmed down system on the Norwegian model.
I am con tent with Her Majesty and her descendants
I would like a president on the Irish model, be we are - or at least aspire to be - a democracy - and I don’t think it’s credible to argue there is public support to end the monarchy. A more achievable goal might be a slimmed down system on the Norwegian model.
I am con tent with Her Majesty and her descendants
I would like a president on the Irish model, be we are - or at least aspire to be - a democracy - and I don’t think it’s credible to argue there is public support to end the monarchy. A more achievable goal might be a slimmed down system on the Norwegian model.
The late Conor Cruise O'Brien opined in my presence (and that of about 20 others) that de Valera modelled the Irish presidency on his understanding of how he would have liked George V to have behaved but, more practically, on how Dev understood the place of the Dominion governors-general-- to my knowledge he never spoke to one. De Valera also wanted to ensure that the president would be less likely to have a mandate which could challenge that of the taoiseach, primarily through an indirect nomination method.
Aficionadi of the Irish model usually forget the constitutional crises in the 1970s, as well as Mary Robinson's brilliant slow-motion passive-aggressive attack on then-Taoiseach Charlie Haughey. It is arguably one of the better models for a parliamentary presidency, and is worth a look, but I am not that certain that it can copy easily to other places.
When folk talk of the Scandinavian monarchies, they perhaps are thinking primarily of the Norwegian one, small in size and less endowed with titles than the others. The Swedish and Danish have a raft of princes and princesses (16 in Sweden alone, many with auxiliary titles and generally comfortably housed). More importantly, the Scandinavian monarchs have their powers outlined by formal constitutions.
Well, I suspect that as the older "extras" (Kents, Gloucesters) die you'll find the titles lapse.
As for the present monarch's two younger children, 1 has "stepped back" and is unlikely to step forward again - at least if his oldest brother has his way - and the youngest (Earl of Wessex) does less than his wife, who is a Good Thing in the mould of Princess Anne.
So we seem to be drifting towards a Danish or Noewegian model, which is what the Prince of Wales wants.
Well, I suspect that as the older "extras" (Kents, Gloucesters) die you'll find the titles lapse.
Can they just lapse when the present holder dies? That would depend upon the order bestowing the title, but given that those now holding the ones you refer to are descendants of those upon whom the present title was bestowed (by George V) I'd assume that the title would descend in accordance with the usual rules. Or are you referring to any Royal Highness title?
I doubt if even the most ardent royalist would argue against a slimmed down monarchy - so Harry striking out on his own seems to be in everyone's interests.
And yet there is a huge fuss.
Is anyone else wondering whether news about Harry is being pushed to distract attention from something else?
I doubt if even the most ardent royalist would argue against a slimmed down monarchy - so Harry striking out on his own seems to be in everyone's interests.
And yet there is a huge fuss.
Is anyone else wondering whether news about Harry is being pushed to distract attention from something else?
O indeed it is - bread and circuses being the usual fare doled out to Them Asses in times of national crisis.
Covid killing so many thousands of us?
Brexit reducing what's left of us to penury?
Right-wing pseudo-fascists stealing our democratic rights?
Who gives a shit? Let's Read Wot It Sez In The Papers about the Royals - that's what's important!
I would like a president on the Irish model, be we are - or at least aspire to be - a democracy - and I don’t think it’s credible to argue there is public support to end the monarchy. A more achievable goal might be a slimmed down system on the Norwegian model.
I am con tent with Her Majesty and her descendants
I doubt if even the most ardent royalist would argue against a slimmed down monarchy - so Harry striking out on his own seems to be in everyone's interests.
And yet there is a huge fuss.
Is anyone else wondering whether news about Harry is being pushed to distract attention from something else?
Do you mean that they're praying for the Duke now? (Never a good sign.)
I doubt if even the most ardent royalist would argue against a slimmed down monarchy - so Harry striking out on his own seems to be in everyone's interests.
And yet there is a huge fuss.
Is anyone else wondering whether news about Harry is being pushed to distract attention from something else?
It's over-determined, surely? Add a nice pinch of racism, misogyny, envy, stir vigorously, and enjoy.
Incidentally, Twitter is full of complaints that whilst Harry and Meghan are given the third degree in the tabloids, (how can they go ahead with their Oprah binge, while Philip lies in hospital), Andrew is left in peace. Don't worry, I read this stuff so you don't have to.
The media responds to people doing things. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are doing things (in this case, giving interviews to various people). The Duke of York has crawled under his rock, and is staying there. One could compare the Duke of York (unwilling to discuss his relationship with paedophile Epstein, or any of the girls & young women that Epstein exploited, with US authorities) with fugitive rapist Roman Polanski.
Polanski's status as a fugitive from justice is mentioned when he can't travel to the US to receive some award or other. It's mentioned whenever there's a legal attempt to get him extradited to the US to face sentencing, and it was mentioned whenever his victim made a public statement. But other than that, "Roman Polanski still a fugitive" isn't really news.
The media also can construct stuff. Famous example, "Meghan's flowers make Princess Charlotte ill", or, "Meghan wears wrong tights in front of Queen", or, "Meghan closes car door, shock", etc.
The media also can construct stuff. Famous example, "Meghan's flowers make Princess Charlotte ill", or, "Meghan wears wrong tights in front of Queen", or, "Meghan closes car door, shock", etc.
It scares me to think that there's a market for this sort of shite...
The media also can construct stuff. Famous example, "Meghan's flowers make Princess Charlotte ill", or, "Meghan wears wrong tights in front of Queen", or, "Meghan closes car door, shock", etc.
It scares me to think that there's a market for this sort of shite...
What would the process of changing Britain to a Republic?
Simple majority vote in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords?
A brain transplant for all those who lap up the shite aforementioned.
O, and the Tower, with durance vile, for the shite-peddlers.
With regard to the audience for shite, I guess there's an overlap between audiences, those who like reading about royalty, those who are racist, those who are misogynist, those who are envious, and those who voted for Brexit.
The media also can construct stuff. Famous example, "Meghan's flowers make Princess Charlotte ill", or, "Meghan wears wrong tights in front of Queen", or, "Meghan closes car door, shock", etc.
It scares me to think that there's a market for this sort of shite...
What would the process of changing Britain to a Republic?
Simple majority vote in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords?
A brain transplant for all those who lap up the shite aforementioned.
O, and the Tower, with durance vile, for the shite-peddlers.
With regard to the audience for shite, I guess there's an overlap between audiences, those who like reading about royalty, those who are racist, those who are misogynist, those who are envious, and those who voted for Brexit.
Yes, that's a fair comment, I think, and pretty well sums up the tory party...
The media also can construct stuff. Famous example, "Meghan's flowers make Princess Charlotte ill", or, "Meghan wears wrong tights in front of Queen", or, "Meghan closes car door, shock", etc.
I doubt if even the most ardent royalist would argue against a slimmed down monarchy - so Harry striking out on his own seems to be in everyone's interests.
Well, yes, it would be a revolution. There is no procedure within the current constitutional set-up for turning the UK into a republic. Of course it has been done before, though the process was generally agreed to have been fairly painful, with mixed eventual results (personally I'm more pro-Cromwell than most, but opinions differ).
I'm sure it could be done again, even without a guillotine, and maybe even peacefully this time. However as Chesterton said: "The Jacobin could tell you not only the system he would rebel against, but (what was more important) the system he would not rebel against, the system he would trust." I am not sure the UK at the moment will generate a replacement solution that will command the necessary general support to be perceived as legitimate. Essentially we are so cynical at the moment that I don't believe we will come up with "the system we will trust".
Well, yes, it would be a revolution. There is no procedure within the current constitutional set-up for turning the UK into a republic. Of course it has been done before, though the process was generally agreed to have been fairly painful, with mixed eventual results (personally I'm more pro-Cromwell than most, but opinions differ).
I'm sure it could be done again, even without a guillotine, and maybe even peacefully this time. However as Chesterton said: "The Jacobin could tell you not only the system he would rebel against, but (what was more important) the system he would not rebel against, the system he would trust." I am not sure the UK at the moment will generate a replacement solution that will command the necessary general support to be perceived as legitimate. Essentially we are so cynical at the moment that I don't believe we will come up with "the system we will trust".
Better the devil you know?
The mechanism is easy: majority vote in both houses of Parliament.
There are two principal challenges, both of which have come to the fore when this has been discussed in Canada and Oz; 1) how do you find an agrement on the way to select the president/whatever? and 2) how do you keep partisan considerations our of the selection of a figure of unityÉ Or, more pithily, in the words of an Australian pilgrim I met: "If you hold an election, we'd get one of those ****ing politicians, and I'd rather have a dead snake."
The mechanism is easy: majority vote in both houses of Parliament.
There are two principal challenges, both of which have come to the fore when this has been discussed in Canada and Oz; 1) how do you find an agrement on the way to select the president/whatever? and 2) how do you keep partisan considerations our of the selection of a figure of unityÉ Or, more pithily, in the words of an Australian pilgrim I met: "If you hold an election, we'd get one of those ****ing politicians, and I'd rather have a dead snake."
The mechanism might be that simple in the case of Canada and Australia. I seriously doubt that is the case in the UK.
As for the pilgrim's statement it reflects everything I detest about our current cynicism. It is the PEOPLE who are the problem, not the politicians. Politicians are great. Politicians are extremely noble by and large, much more morally upstanding that the mass of the population. It is our current cynicism about politicians that reduces the quality of politicians, as people falsely think that "it's no job for a decent person".
Outsider looking in, my guess is it would take a Constitutional Convention of some type. As I understand it, the monarchy claims Divine right. The British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, is the Sovereign and Head of State of the UK and its overseas territories. The Monarch, referred to in the abstract as ‘The Crown’, is the source of all legislative and executive power. Since Henry VIII, the British Monarch is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
The British Monarch is also the Head of the Commonwealth, and the Head of State in 15 of the other 53 Commonwealth member countries.
Since the Crown is considered a constitutional monarchy, it would take a revision of the constitution. One reason why the United States Constitution begins with "We, the People of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union..." We wanted to get rid of the divine right of kings. We the people claim that right.
Then, when the written constitution is agreed to, I would think it would have to pass both houses of parliament and then be put to the people for ratification.
On top of this, treaties with the Commonwealth nations would have to be renegotiated. Not easy, I would imagine--look at the shambles of Brexit
We have no written constitution, and no set mechanism specifically for changing our unwritten one
The basic principle is that Parliament can do anything except bind itself.
I've got a suggestion for one:
"Nae King! Nae Quin! We will nae be fooled again!"
Yes, I'm afraid so...but a smaller, slimmer monarchy would not be a Bad Thing - and if much of the ridiculous hype is done away with, so much the better.
What would the process of changing Britain to a Republic?
Simple majority vote in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords?
It involves constitutional amendment here and hence a long drawn out procedure. First, both houses of Federal Parliament need to approve having a referendum by an absolute majority in each case. Having done that, there's the referendum itself, at which the so-called the double majority is needed - an absolute majority of electors overall, and a majority of electors in a majority of States as well.
How would that affect countries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand?
In theory, not at all (AIUI, Her Majesty the Queen of Canada happens to be the same person as the Queen of Australia etc., but any one of Her Majesty's realms can remove her as monarch without affecting her constitutional status in any of the other countries.)
How would that affect countries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand?
In theory, not at all (AIUI, Her Majesty the Queen of Canada happens to be the same person as the Queen of Australia etc., but any one of Her Majesty's realms can remove her as monarch without affecting her constitutional status in any of the other countries.)
Actually it was George V and Queen Mary who put in place the idea of a working Royal Family. After WWI the dukes of York, Gloucester and Kent, and the Princess Royal were expected to carry out a lot of engagements, particularly visiting hospitals and convalescent homes for badly wounded/ permanently disabled ex-servicemen and unveiling local war memorials, etc.
It was made much easier for those "down the line" because they were brought up with the idea of doing the royal duty bit but were at the same time drilled that it was the heir who was the important person.
You could say that the rot set in with two particularly foolish mothers (the late Queen Mother and Princess of Wales) not dinning it into their "spares" that their first job was to support the heir and the second to keep their nose clean. You might also think our own monarch didn't do too brilliantly either, but she at least had the excuse of being busy queening while her children were small.
That’s an unfair comment about Diana. Those boys were teenagers when she was killed. It was her job to mother them and she did; not to “ din in” all that Land of Hope & Glory into either of them.
The Queen Mum was a selfish old bat and the younger daughter a spoiled brat for all of her 70 years.
As I recall, the Royal Princess drove ambulance in WWII, though I don't think she was sent to the front.
Yes, I know the British Constitution is unwritten. That is why I specifically said you would need a constitutional convention to write one. Becoming a Republic means old traditions would have to be rethought out. For instance--do you want a figurehead president? What powers will that president have or not have? How will the president be replaced or how long will the term of office be. What would be the relation of the president to the prime minister? etc. etc. Believe me, it would be much harder than a simple majority vote of the Parliament
The then Princess Elizabeth was in the ATS and trained as a heavy-goods driver and mechanic. Princess Margaret was too young - she turned 15 just after VJ Day.
Comments
Maybe, but if (as one would hope) the President's duties were to be largely ceremonial, the lady concerned would probably carry them out extremely well.
Indeed it might - and not only Norway, but Sweden, Denmark, and The Netherlands all spring to mind.
I am con tent with Her Majesty and her descendants
Some people think that it's indeed time to *slim down* the royal nonsense, in the way that other countries have done.
I am particularly uncontent with Prince Andrew
I was not referring to her.
Just those in line to be Monarch and likely to be monarch
Not likely to be monarch
The late Conor Cruise O'Brien opined in my presence (and that of about 20 others) that de Valera modelled the Irish presidency on his understanding of how he would have liked George V to have behaved but, more practically, on how Dev understood the place of the Dominion governors-general-- to my knowledge he never spoke to one. De Valera also wanted to ensure that the president would be less likely to have a mandate which could challenge that of the taoiseach, primarily through an indirect nomination method.
Aficionadi of the Irish model usually forget the constitutional crises in the 1970s, as well as Mary Robinson's brilliant slow-motion passive-aggressive attack on then-Taoiseach Charlie Haughey. It is arguably one of the better models for a parliamentary presidency, and is worth a look, but I am not that certain that it can copy easily to other places.
When folk talk of the Scandinavian monarchies, they perhaps are thinking primarily of the Norwegian one, small in size and less endowed with titles than the others. The Swedish and Danish have a raft of princes and princesses (16 in Sweden alone, many with auxiliary titles and generally comfortably housed). More importantly, the Scandinavian monarchs have their powers outlined by formal constitutions.
As for the present monarch's two younger children, 1 has "stepped back" and is unlikely to step forward again - at least if his oldest brother has his way - and the youngest (Earl of Wessex) does less than his wife, who is a Good Thing in the mould of Princess Anne.
So we seem to be drifting towards a Danish or Noewegian model, which is what the Prince of Wales wants.
Can they just lapse when the present holder dies? That would depend upon the order bestowing the title, but given that those now holding the ones you refer to are descendants of those upon whom the present title was bestowed (by George V) I'd assume that the title would descend in accordance with the usual rules. Or are you referring to any Royal Highness title?
Right
And yet there is a huge fuss.
Is anyone else wondering whether news about Harry is being pushed to distract attention from something else?
O indeed it is - bread and circuses being the usual fare doled out to Them Asses in times of national crisis.
Covid killing so many thousands of us?
Brexit reducing what's left of us to penury?
Right-wing pseudo-fascists stealing our democratic rights?
Who gives a shit? Let's Read Wot It Sez In The Papers about the Royals - that's what's important!
Not even with free pizza thrown in?!
Do you mean that they're praying for the Duke now? (Never a good sign.)
It's over-determined, surely? Add a nice pinch of racism, misogyny, envy, stir vigorously, and enjoy.
Polanski's status as a fugitive from justice is mentioned when he can't travel to the US to receive some award or other. It's mentioned whenever there's a legal attempt to get him extradited to the US to face sentencing, and it was mentioned whenever his victim made a public statement. But other than that, "Roman Polanski still a fugitive" isn't really news.
Simple majority vote in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords?
It scares me to think that there's a market for this sort of shite...
A brain transplant for all those who lap up the shite aforementioned.
O, and the Tower, with durance vile, for the shite-peddlers.
With regard to the audience for shite, I guess there's an overlap between audiences, those who like reading about royalty, those who are racist, those who are misogynist, those who are envious, and those who voted for Brexit.
Yes, that's a fair comment, I think, and pretty well sums up the tory party...
"How Meghan Markle's flowers may have put Princess Charlotte's life at risk"
Irregular verbs
etc etc.
Or guillotine...
No, seriously.
As far as I can see that's all that's required.
I'm sure it could be done again, even without a guillotine, and maybe even peacefully this time. However as Chesterton said: "The Jacobin could tell you not only the system he would rebel against, but (what was more important) the system he would not rebel against, the system he would trust." I am not sure the UK at the moment will generate a replacement solution that will command the necessary general support to be perceived as legitimate. Essentially we are so cynical at the moment that I don't believe we will come up with "the system we will trust".
Better the devil you know?
The mechanism is easy: majority vote in both houses of Parliament.
There are two principal challenges, both of which have come to the fore when this has been discussed in Canada and Oz; 1) how do you find an agrement on the way to select the president/whatever? and 2) how do you keep partisan considerations our of the selection of a figure of unityÉ Or, more pithily, in the words of an Australian pilgrim I met: "If you hold an election, we'd get one of those ****ing politicians, and I'd rather have a dead snake."
The mechanism might be that simple in the case of Canada and Australia. I seriously doubt that is the case in the UK.
As for the pilgrim's statement it reflects everything I detest about our current cynicism. It is the PEOPLE who are the problem, not the politicians. Politicians are great. Politicians are extremely noble by and large, much more morally upstanding that the mass of the population. It is our current cynicism about politicians that reduces the quality of politicians, as people falsely think that "it's no job for a decent person".
Why not? The primacy of parliament was firmly established in 1688.
Why would we want to be a republic. If we are not happy with the monarch we can ask them to abdicate, like in 1936
The British Monarch is also the Head of the Commonwealth, and the Head of State in 15 of the other 53 Commonwealth member countries.
Since the Crown is considered a constitutional monarchy, it would take a revision of the constitution. One reason why the United States Constitution begins with "We, the People of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union..." We wanted to get rid of the divine right of kings. We the people claim that right.
Then, when the written constitution is agreed to, I would think it would have to pass both houses of parliament and then be put to the people for ratification.
On top of this, treaties with the Commonwealth nations would have to be renegotiated. Not easy, I would imagine--look at the shambles of Brexit
The basic principle is that Parliament can do anything except bind itself.
I've got a suggestion for one:
"Nae King! Nae Quin! We will nae be fooled again!"
Yes, I'm afraid so...but a smaller, slimmer monarchy would not be a Bad Thing - and if much of the ridiculous hype is done away with, so much the better.
Well we'd need an Archbishop capable of twisting facts and events to his own advantage if we follow that route.
First of all you need a totally hopeless monarch
Any potential of getting one who isn't?
The current one is excellent and so was her father
It involves constitutional amendment here and hence a long drawn out procedure. First, both houses of Federal Parliament need to approve having a referendum by an absolute majority in each case. Having done that, there's the referendum itself, at which the so-called the double majority is needed - an absolute majority of electors overall, and a majority of electors in a majority of States as well.
How would that affect countries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand?
They would think we were daft and kick us out of the Commonwealth
In theory, not at all (AIUI, Her Majesty the Queen of Canada happens to be the same person as the Queen of Australia etc., but any one of Her Majesty's realms can remove her as monarch without affecting her constitutional status in any of the other countries.)
In practice, it's hard to imagine...
Indeed it is, but ISWYM.
That’s an unfair comment about Diana. Those boys were teenagers when she was killed. It was her job to mother them and she did; not to “ din in” all that Land of Hope & Glory into either of them.
The Queen Mum was a selfish old bat and the younger daughter a spoiled brat for all of her 70 years.
Yes, I know the British Constitution is unwritten. That is why I specifically said you would need a constitutional convention to write one. Becoming a Republic means old traditions would have to be rethought out. For instance--do you want a figurehead president? What powers will that president have or not have? How will the president be replaced or how long will the term of office be. What would be the relation of the president to the prime minister? etc. etc. Believe me, it would be much harder than a simple majority vote of the Parliament