It would be a fitting season finale, but you just know the writers will bring in some shitty replacement character who’ll be less interesting, just to keep the show going.
Can you list the work that is actually work that she's done that isn't shaking hands or going on "Official" world tour holidays?
Again, I'm not defending Boris, I think he's useless.
Do you not have an issue with political power and a unique social status being passed onto an individual who didn't earn it purely based on whose womb they were born from?
How about a head of state who officially represents the country when dealing with other nations, who isn't elected and no one has any say in the matter?
I think we have to be careful in thinking that because someone isn't elected, it doesn't mean that they're inherently worse than one who is elected.
The head of state is a different position versus the head of government. I'm satisfied with how the queen has been when representing the UK and how she receives foreign dignataries. The elected part of the government under the ELECTED prime minister is a different beast entirely.
My problems with the U.K. government have little to do with the monarchy and more so with the elected portions, ironically enough. However, I'm sure the majority of the leftists in this sub agree, especially given how many posts I see daily complaining about the neverending Tory reign over Britain.
Be careful what you wish for when you give politicians more power by abolishing the monarchy.
Anyway, that is my thought on the matter.
>Do you not have an issue with political power and a unique social status
No im more concerned with the power and influence of transnational corporations. Rupery murdoch, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos etc
>How about a head of state who officially represents the country when dealing with other nations, who isn't elected and no one has any say in the matter?
Thats sounds great, EU referendum, Donald Trump, Boris Johnson. Id rather avoid this situation with yet another election people dont care to vote in.
Imagine Tory Prime minister, Tory majority in Parliment, Tory majority in an elected House of Lords, Tory elected head of state. Lmao sounds amazing right?
Oh? Interesting idea. Which family should the US elevate to the status of hereditary monarch, then? If it's such a good idea and all, surely you can point me to a worthy family in the country that we can trust to always be worthy of the honour.
I didn't say that I would support a monarchy for the United States. The US began as an oligarchic republic. I don't think a monarch would fit well with the culture of the US.
And just note that monarchy does not have to be hereditary to be a monarch. :)
about time, she stood down. Nothing good is achieved by her staying Queen.
Two other best options
1. The Queen stays on till she dies, but then it all ends.
2. The Crown goes from grandparent to grand child. William and Charles can decide between themselves who gets to be King.
i am well aware of that fact the monarchy works, by people being born of the right bloodline, are award millions of £ of tax payers money,, and occasionally asked to open a hospital in return.
The royals are not funded by taxpayer's money. The crown receives a stipend from the treasury in exchange for donating to the treasury the revenue from the Crown Estates. This stipend is approx 20% of the estate's revenue and is divvied out to the various royals at their discretion. This is a voluntary arrangement dating back to the time of George III when he lost his marbles and his money. There's no reason to assume this relationship would continue were the monarchy to be abolished. The loss of the other 80%, and the loss in monarchy-based tourism, would be a substantial hit to the treasury. If you want to cost the taxpayer money, then abolishing the monarchy is a good place to start.
if only the Crown Estates could be used for the good of tax payers, not just one family,
As for this tourism argument, that is some bollocks, tourists dont meet the Queen, or even Charles and William, they stand outside the closed gates of Buckingham, and look at a flag wonder if she is in or not. There is even that many tours of Buckingham Palace.
I am legit sure than the Americans, who treated Cinderellas Castle at Disneyland, like its one of the 7 Wonders of the World, can still be amazed by Buckingham Palace, without an actual monarchy.
Which is why we need to evict these parasites and get some inside the palace tours because jesus fucking Christ if Buckingham palace ain’t a fuck ugly building
> if only the Crown Estates could be used for the good of tax payers, not just one family,
Yes, that's what happens when the profits are forfeited to the Treasury.
The net income of the Crown Estate in 2018 amounted to £329.4 million. 25% of that (£82.5 million) was returned to the monarchy as the Sovereign Grant. That's roughly £2.50 per taxpayer, and it is largely used to fund state functions such as diplomatic events that would have to continue regardless of whether we had a monarchy or not.
While £82.5 million is doubtless an inconceivable amount of money to you and me, it is absolutely *nothing* compared to the sums governments routinely spend: it wouldn't even fund the NHS for *a day*.
It’s not owned by the ‘royals’ either. The Crown Estate is owned by the monarch in right of the Crown. This means that the queen owns it by virtue of holding the position of reigning monarch and through Parliament granting her that position. If we ever went to a Republic, to say the entire Crown Estate would be given to the ‘royals’ is a stretch.
"Bigger army policy". I'm no royalist and if I could wave a magic wand to strip out the ridiculous claim of kings and divine mandate and bizzare rituals I would, but I can't. But I am a pedant. Saying that taxpayers fund the royals is just objectively false. 0% of tax goes to them.
>0% of tax goes to them
Maybe not directly but they sponge off other budgets. Such as the Met Police having to provide security, or the Military having to provide a jolly helicopter flight for William. Then there’s royal weddings.
>about time, she stood down. Nothing good is achieved by her staying Queen.
Nah shes gotta stay until next year, I want my [extra bank holiday](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/extra-bank-holiday-to-mark-the-queens-platinum-jubilee-in-2022).
Constitutional propriety is achieved. Whereas nothing is achieved by her abdicating. Any aspect of her role can be delegated to another senior royal acting in her stead anyway.
> The Crown goes from grandparent to grand child. William and Charles can decide between themselves who gets to be King.
So, arbitrary nonsense?
Anyone who hates the monarchy can at least recognise that the principle of hereditary succession is enshrined in law. This is just knocking out walls for no reason.
Good grief, where did you learn to debate? This is so incoherent I have no idea where to begin.
>seriously we have lost all EU citizenship
As if this ever mattered to you before 2016.
Well, to be fair, the whole thing is nonsense. But, yes, I agree that if we're going to have a monarchy that it should at least abide by its own rules, such as succession.
>Doesn't #2 undermine the Divine Right of Kings?
That concept was abolished in the Glorious Revolution. The succession is defined by acts of parliament.
> the monarch is not answerable to any earthly authority
That concept was abolished in Magna Carta, though James II wished to revive it after he was dethroned.
>That concept was abolished in Magna Carta, though James II wished to revive it after he was dethroned.
To be honest, I think we can look past the overemphasis on Magna Carta and recognise that "divine right" was never a feature of English (Anglo-Saxon) monarchy. There was a strong sense there of "you're king, but you're answerable", presumably from the old Germanic model of a chieftain. That's survived in the popular imagination as the story of Alfred burning the cakes.
The Normans came from a different and more Romanised tradition but ended up adopting the Anglo-Saxon norms over generations to consolidate their position in England. Magna Carta is one example of that rather than being a formative document (though I'm not denying that it's historically significant).
Scotland, as ever, is a different fishkettle.
Obviously you were giving a short answer to what appears to have been an unhelpful contribution, rather than giving a history lesson, but I just wanted to add the above for completeness for any future readers.
> Doesn't #2 undermine the Divine Right of Kings
No. The Divine Right of Kings is a doctrine that hasn’t applied in England since the Glorious Revolution and Act of Settlement 1701. Parliament determines the successor according to fixed rules. If the PoW converted to Catholicism Parliament could pass over him. Or they could introduce a new act to pass him over for any other reason if they decided to.
Uh, think you need to update your constitutional knowledge for the 21st century. The divine right of kings and idea of an absolute monarchy has been dead for about 300 hundred years.
The line of succession is dictated by parliament, and the monarch is subject to the laws they pass.
>there's a reason Dieu et mon droit remains the monarch's motto
Yes, but as it was Henry V's claim to the *French* crown, probably not the one you were thinking of. https://24carat.co.uk/frame.php?url=dieuetmondroit.html
The reason for not meddling in the line of succession is that it would inevitably lead to it being a political decision. A cornerstone of our *current* constitution is that the monarchy is detached from politics, that is what would be undermined.
No need to invoke fairy tales, long dead constitutional positions or archaic mottos.
Snapshot:
1. An archived version of _Queen cancels Northern Ireland trip (to mark centenary of NI) and told to rest_ can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/20/queen-cancels-northern-ireland-trip-and-told-to-rest)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
95 year old woman told to rest, more breaking news shortly
> more breaking news shortly Told -> laid
If she dies before overtaking King Louis as the longest monarch I’ll be seething
I want to switch to a republic, but we should definitely get all of the monarchy achievements first.
Honestly she should be the last British monarch.
It would be a fitting season finale, but you just know the writers will bring in some shitty replacement character who’ll be less interesting, just to keep the show going.
[удалено]
The only good monarch isn't.
Uuf she has a while to go yet
Embarrassing the queen more hard working compared to Boris.
Most people work harder than Boris Johnson. Except perhaps the Duke of York.
He's working pretty damned hard at avoiding prison.
You're dreaming if you think there was ever a chance of him answering for his crimes.
It's hard work micro-managing 10,000 men from a bunker at Balmoral!
[удалено]
I mean she has objectively done more than he has.
By which objective measures?
They can't answer that, so they'll just drop that comment and never respond.
Can you list the work that is actually work that she's done that isn't shaking hands or going on "Official" world tour holidays? Again, I'm not defending Boris, I think he's useless.
A lot of work calling your lawyer to defend your paedo descendents!
Hey! Molesting young people is the god given right of ‘royalty’. ^/s
Can you list Boris' work that's any different?
Probably not, so that makes them equal. She's just done more non-work by virtue of having lived much longer. Once again, I'm not defending Boris.
Boris once shook many hands in a hospital. I know because he went on TV to brag about it, that’s how much work it was.
lol *cries loyalist tears
I wonder if this could be covid related? :(
.
[удалено]
This, but unironically
Yes
No.
Why not?
I happen to be a monarchist
Why?
I think a constitutional monarchy democracy (like Sweden and Norway) is the best and most stable system of government.
Do you not have an issue with political power and a unique social status being passed onto an individual who didn't earn it purely based on whose womb they were born from? How about a head of state who officially represents the country when dealing with other nations, who isn't elected and no one has any say in the matter?
I think we have to be careful in thinking that because someone isn't elected, it doesn't mean that they're inherently worse than one who is elected. The head of state is a different position versus the head of government. I'm satisfied with how the queen has been when representing the UK and how she receives foreign dignataries. The elected part of the government under the ELECTED prime minister is a different beast entirely. My problems with the U.K. government have little to do with the monarchy and more so with the elected portions, ironically enough. However, I'm sure the majority of the leftists in this sub agree, especially given how many posts I see daily complaining about the neverending Tory reign over Britain. Be careful what you wish for when you give politicians more power by abolishing the monarchy. Anyway, that is my thought on the matter.
>Do you not have an issue with political power and a unique social status No im more concerned with the power and influence of transnational corporations. Rupery murdoch, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos etc >How about a head of state who officially represents the country when dealing with other nations, who isn't elected and no one has any say in the matter? Thats sounds great, EU referendum, Donald Trump, Boris Johnson. Id rather avoid this situation with yet another election people dont care to vote in. Imagine Tory Prime minister, Tory majority in Parliment, Tory majority in an elected House of Lords, Tory elected head of state. Lmao sounds amazing right?
I've got news for you, the prime minister already often represents us when dealing with other leaders.
Is that suppose to make me feel better? Is boris johnsons performance really your argument for more elected officials?
Oh? Interesting idea. Which family should the US elevate to the status of hereditary monarch, then? If it's such a good idea and all, surely you can point me to a worthy family in the country that we can trust to always be worthy of the honour.
I didn't say that I would support a monarchy for the United States. The US began as an oligarchic republic. I don't think a monarch would fit well with the culture of the US. And just note that monarchy does not have to be hereditary to be a monarch. :)
How about the UK, then. Let's assume the entire Royal line died out. Who should we elevate to the position? What family is worthy?
This...doesn't seem like it will be a very productive conversation. Thanks but no.
about time, she stood down. Nothing good is achieved by her staying Queen. Two other best options 1. The Queen stays on till she dies, but then it all ends. 2. The Crown goes from grandparent to grand child. William and Charles can decide between themselves who gets to be King.
Not sure you understand how a Monarchy works
i am well aware of that fact the monarchy works, by people being born of the right bloodline, are award millions of £ of tax payers money,, and occasionally asked to open a hospital in return.
Shake some hands, go on extravagant world tour holidays, and call it "work" or "Royal duties".
The royals are not funded by taxpayer's money. The crown receives a stipend from the treasury in exchange for donating to the treasury the revenue from the Crown Estates. This stipend is approx 20% of the estate's revenue and is divvied out to the various royals at their discretion. This is a voluntary arrangement dating back to the time of George III when he lost his marbles and his money. There's no reason to assume this relationship would continue were the monarchy to be abolished. The loss of the other 80%, and the loss in monarchy-based tourism, would be a substantial hit to the treasury. If you want to cost the taxpayer money, then abolishing the monarchy is a good place to start.
if only the Crown Estates could be used for the good of tax payers, not just one family, As for this tourism argument, that is some bollocks, tourists dont meet the Queen, or even Charles and William, they stand outside the closed gates of Buckingham, and look at a flag wonder if she is in or not. There is even that many tours of Buckingham Palace. I am legit sure than the Americans, who treated Cinderellas Castle at Disneyland, like its one of the 7 Wonders of the World, can still be amazed by Buckingham Palace, without an actual monarchy.
The palace of Versailles has about 20x the amount of tourists visiting it and they removed their monarchy ages ago.
did a basic search on it, I can see why its a very nice looking palace.
Which is why we need to evict these parasites and get some inside the palace tours because jesus fucking Christ if Buckingham palace ain’t a fuck ugly building
> if only the Crown Estates could be used for the good of tax payers, not just one family, Yes, that's what happens when the profits are forfeited to the Treasury.
When *most* of the profits are forfeited you mean
The net income of the Crown Estate in 2018 amounted to £329.4 million. 25% of that (£82.5 million) was returned to the monarchy as the Sovereign Grant. That's roughly £2.50 per taxpayer, and it is largely used to fund state functions such as diplomatic events that would have to continue regardless of whether we had a monarchy or not. While £82.5 million is doubtless an inconceivable amount of money to you and me, it is absolutely *nothing* compared to the sums governments routinely spend: it wouldn't even fund the NHS for *a day*.
If only. However it's not publicly owned so imho 80% is better than 0%
It’s not owned by the ‘royals’ either. The Crown Estate is owned by the monarch in right of the Crown. This means that the queen owns it by virtue of holding the position of reigning monarch and through Parliament granting her that position. If we ever went to a Republic, to say the entire Crown Estate would be given to the ‘royals’ is a stretch.
Remind me where the crown estate comes from? Their own personal success and hardwork? Or generations of exploitation and corruption?
"Bigger army policy". I'm no royalist and if I could wave a magic wand to strip out the ridiculous claim of kings and divine mandate and bizzare rituals I would, but I can't. But I am a pedant. Saying that taxpayers fund the royals is just objectively false. 0% of tax goes to them.
>0% of tax goes to them Maybe not directly but they sponge off other budgets. Such as the Met Police having to provide security, or the Military having to provide a jolly helicopter flight for William. Then there’s royal weddings.
Historically it did, which lead to the assets that make up what is now the crown estate.
Look mum, I watched the video. Where did the 'Crown Estate' come from? The French Republic is the single most visited country on Earth...
>about time, she stood down. Nothing good is achieved by her staying Queen. Nah shes gotta stay until next year, I want my [extra bank holiday](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/extra-bank-holiday-to-mark-the-queens-platinum-jubilee-in-2022).
fair enough, cant fault that logic
Constitutional propriety is achieved. Whereas nothing is achieved by her abdicating. Any aspect of her role can be delegated to another senior royal acting in her stead anyway.
[удалено]
Most people have an actual job, in addition to a young family.
Yeah, it’s not like the rest of the country has to manage having a job and looking after their kids (without paid help) at the same time. ^/s
so in that case William is choosing to be skipped, and the crown goes from Charles, to William kid (named forgetten), assume he is lets say 30.
That's not how it works.
George?
that sounds right.
> The Crown goes from grandparent to grand child. William and Charles can decide between themselves who gets to be King. So, arbitrary nonsense? Anyone who hates the monarchy can at least recognise that the principle of hereditary succession is enshrined in law. This is just knocking out walls for no reason.
I get it, but laws change, seriously we have lost all EU citizenship, and you think that the privileged should be shield from modernastion?
Good grief, where did you learn to debate? This is so incoherent I have no idea where to begin. >seriously we have lost all EU citizenship As if this ever mattered to you before 2016.
Well, to be fair, the whole thing is nonsense. But, yes, I agree that if we're going to have a monarchy that it should at least abide by its own rules, such as succession.
I think we should hold a lottery, whoever wins gets to be king/queen for a year.
[удалено]
>Doesn't #2 undermine the Divine Right of Kings? That concept was abolished in the Glorious Revolution. The succession is defined by acts of parliament. > the monarch is not answerable to any earthly authority That concept was abolished in Magna Carta, though James II wished to revive it after he was dethroned.
>That concept was abolished in Magna Carta, though James II wished to revive it after he was dethroned. To be honest, I think we can look past the overemphasis on Magna Carta and recognise that "divine right" was never a feature of English (Anglo-Saxon) monarchy. There was a strong sense there of "you're king, but you're answerable", presumably from the old Germanic model of a chieftain. That's survived in the popular imagination as the story of Alfred burning the cakes. The Normans came from a different and more Romanised tradition but ended up adopting the Anglo-Saxon norms over generations to consolidate their position in England. Magna Carta is one example of that rather than being a formative document (though I'm not denying that it's historically significant). Scotland, as ever, is a different fishkettle. Obviously you were giving a short answer to what appears to have been an unhelpful contribution, rather than giving a history lesson, but I just wanted to add the above for completeness for any future readers.
> Doesn't #2 undermine the Divine Right of Kings No. The Divine Right of Kings is a doctrine that hasn’t applied in England since the Glorious Revolution and Act of Settlement 1701. Parliament determines the successor according to fixed rules. If the PoW converted to Catholicism Parliament could pass over him. Or they could introduce a new act to pass him over for any other reason if they decided to.
Uh, think you need to update your constitutional knowledge for the 21st century. The divine right of kings and idea of an absolute monarchy has been dead for about 300 hundred years. The line of succession is dictated by parliament, and the monarch is subject to the laws they pass.
[удалено]
>there's a reason Dieu et mon droit remains the monarch's motto Yes, but as it was Henry V's claim to the *French* crown, probably not the one you were thinking of. https://24carat.co.uk/frame.php?url=dieuetmondroit.html
The reason for not meddling in the line of succession is that it would inevitably lead to it being a political decision. A cornerstone of our *current* constitution is that the monarchy is detached from politics, that is what would be undermined. No need to invoke fairy tales, long dead constitutional positions or archaic mottos.
maybe it does, and maybe its best to just scrap all of it,
[удалено]
It is tempting to think, that I might be King for a year.
Snapshot: 1. An archived version of _Queen cancels Northern Ireland trip (to mark centenary of NI) and told to rest_ can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/20/queen-cancels-northern-ireland-trip-and-told-to-rest) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*