Should we get rid of this anachronistic instution and if so why? Here's your chance to debate this issue after a decent lapse of time following recent events.

Disgusted at some of the bile and disrespect released during the recent bereavement I now find myself slightly pro monarchy (60/40 in favour) after being almost entirely indifferent to the issue a few weeks ago. So I'll start the ball rolling with a few points from http://www.monarchy.net/finances.htm.

The Civil List as it currently exists was created on the accession of King George III in 1760, when it was decided that the cost of government should be provided by Parliament. In return, and in a move described by John Brooke in his biography of the King as "from the point of view of the Crown ... the most disastrous step that could have been taken", he surrendered the hereditary royal revenue. This included income from the customs and post office and the net surplus of the Crown Estate. The £132.9 million profit of the Crown Estate for year ending March 31st 2000 was paid to the Exchequer for the benefit of taxpayers. This sum far exceeds the total cost of the monarchy. The Queen’s Civil List has been fixed at £7.9 million per annum until 2011. Prince Phillip is the only other Civil List recipient at £359k pa. Most of the civil list money is used to pay the staff of the Royal Household - all of whom pay tax of course.

The Occupied Royal Palaces, principally Buckingham Palace, St.James’s Palace, Clarence House, parts of Kensington Palace and Windsor Castle are funded by Grants-in-Aid. Obviously, they would be maintained by the State whether Britain were a monarchy or not.

In republics not only do presidents have to be supported financially, as do former presidents and widows, but their official duties have to be paid for, and official and historic residences maintained. And there is the added expense of periodic elections. Republics show great reluctance in publishing the cost of their heads of state, but the cost of the British monarchy compares extremely favourably.

It seems to me that the cost of the Royal Family is negligible (if indeed there is any cost at all) and provided the institution can retain the respect of the people then it would seem quite useful to retain it at the present time, because of it's uniqueness, and it's capacity (not necessarily ability) to unite the nation in a non-political way. It doesn't seem to have held this tiny, relatively rich country back in any significant way, and it's pageantry and tradition seem to be a great source of attraction for tourists.

Further - you have to ask yourself, if the colour has to be trooped, and surely nobody is suggesting that it would be seemly to leave the colour untrooped, then who the hell would do that if we had no Queen? :-)

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2002

Answers

Anti President (until convinced otherwise)

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2002

IMO We should keep them as a spectacle and toruist attraction. Part of our history. But they should have no political power.

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2002

giving up the "right" to customs and excise duties and post office must have been a bugger. Just imagine if they still did have that right, it'd be the Royal Family now losing all that Cosignia money and having to try and spot people smuggling fags thro Dover.

I have a probem with the whole concept of heridetary power and influence, particularly at the level we're talking about here.

The main reason I see for maintaining the monarchy is a status quo thing. We are naturally conservative by nature, and if something isn't fundamentally broken then don't change it. If we were to start from scratch have no structure to our society at all and try and sit and plan it out we wouldn't ever come up with the Royal Family as the answer.

If w'd been a republic in 1997 and elected Tony Blair as President who would have been happy with the concept of starting again, reverting to a monarch and having Euan Blair as our future leader.

I/We have no choice in who leads out nation. We cannot predict anything with much certainty for the future. The changes inthe last 100 yeras have been enormous, yet we seem to be able to be comfortable with the concept that Prince William's first born son will be our leader.

There is no accountability, none what so ever. Princess Margaret and QM still took money from the civil list despite being totally incapable of doing any of the 'duties' expected of them.

I find it completely indefensible that Prince Philip gets a £359k in his own right. For what ? What fat cat of industry can demand that amount of salary ?

The Royal household uses the money given to it to wine and dine dignitaries. The wine and spirits bill rose to £120,000 in 2000. Pretty impressive. Something wrong with the self prepetutating idea that you have to spend bucketloads of money to prove you are the elite.

Countries which have presidents who have a political role, and cost fortunes to elect/employ may not be the way forward. They probably aren't what we want here either as the current set up seems to work okay. The leader of a country needs to be apolitical and that would be very hard to find.

I saw an opinion poll a few years ago which was along the lines of "who would you want to lead your country if it wasn't the queen ?", it had all the usual culprits in it but the winner in the end was Princess Anne :0)

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2002

Keep the whole sheebang exactly as it's always been, if you like, with the exception that the head of state has to be elected. I'd have no problems with that style of 'royalty'.

That this isn't so is the over riding reason for my loathing of the current setup. Nothing to do with any of the current incumbents, other than maybe a dislike for what I've been led to believe of some of their characteristics as people. That would be the case even if they weren't royals.

Far from it in fact, it's purely and simply the fact that it's completely and totally undemocratic.

We can't shift them, and neither I nor my ilk have any chance of ever taking the place of any of them.

So, good riddance to the institution, and the sooner the better.

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2002

Very pleased to see a much higher standard of debate on this issue this time.

they should have no political power

Frankly, I don't think they have - none whatsoever.

I'm sure you're right Macbeth, that if we were setting the whole thing up now, there is no way we would chose such a system. It is an anachronism which for some reason, seems to have successfully survived the historical shocks which blew most of the other monarchies away. Very amusing point you make about Princess Anne being the people's alternate choice! How far behind was Cliff Richard?

The "undemocratic" thing is interesting Pit Bill. Electing a monarch would be an entirely new form of organisation. Someone in the media recently suggested having the incumbent change annually on the basis of a lottery! (The idea being that the institution works - and it doesn't matter who does it so let's share it round somehow) We DO have democratic choices however, I'm convinced of that. And that choice is either retaining the Monarchy or getting rid of it altogether. If enough people want rid of the monarchy this would be achieved quite easily under our democratic system. As it happens however, it is so low in people's prorities that there is no major political party to adopt such a policy yet.

To my way of thinking, the beauty of the current sytem is that the head of state (nominal head of state - she has zero power despite the elaborate ceremonies and that wonderful nonesense of the Queen's ie Prime Minister's Speech) is apolitical. Because she doesn't represent a political party, and I have neither voted for nor against her, then I am happy to look to her as the head of state. I would despise my head of state if it were (say) Thatcher and if it were Haig then I think I would emigrate in shame. I wouldn't be overjoyed if it were Blair, or Brown - these people are politicians - they have to wheel and deal with various power groups and lobbyists -sleaze will ALWAYS be perceived/suspected regardless of their character - the Queen is rather spendidly above all of this.

Personally I think the Queen does a great job. Of course, I've very little idea what she does, but I'm convinced that whatever she does, she does it with a great sense of dignity and also a great sense of responsibility and service to the nation. Presumably the advantage of the position being heriditary is that the next person is groomed for the role from birth. When I was younger, I always wanted Prince Charles to grow his hair, wear denims and smoke joints but somehow I think he was right not to take any advice I might have offered him! He has managed to retain that balance between aloofness/mystique and being the ordinary human being we know he is.

Quite honestly, I think if you don't like the current system you have to offer an alternative. If it ain't broke etc. So far we seem to have established that it is broke only in the sense that from a democratic viewpoint, it's "not fair". But electing a monarch would surely bring the monarchy into the dirty political fray it stays aloof from at present. And choosing a "monarch" by lottery would open the role to any Tom Dick or Harry and be a complete joke.

As long as the incumbent is a person of the character and quality of The Queen, I'm happy to see it continue. At some time in the future, perhaps some monarch or next-in-line will step seriously out of line and do something badly disapproved of by the people. Then I think the institution could disappear quite quickly but until that time I think the system we have works well. Indeed, I think it's probably too clever for anyone to invent such a system from scratch. It's a fortunate historical accident.

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2002

For me it isn't about the money, it is simply that no one was 'born to reign over me' - the idea that we should address these people in a particular way or that I should be prevented, for example, from crossing a road until royalty has passed by, is abhorent.

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2002

Crikey Wendy. You've been quite for a long time. Something a bit too close to "work" stirred you out of your slumbers??? Anyway - welcome back!

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2002

the idea that we should address these people in a particular way or that I should be prevented, for example, from crossing a road until royalty has passed by, is abhorent.

In all my 51 years I have never yet had occasion to address any of these people in any way whatsoever, although I'm sure I would accord them the correct form of address in much the same way as I pay every single person I ever address by the form appropriate to them. I call it courtesy, but maybe that's an old fashioned concept?

Equally, in 51 years, I have never had to wait to cross a road or indeed suffer any inconvenience whatsoever on account of the Royal Family. Perhaps if I lived in Windsor or next door to Buckingham Palace this would become onerous. Aren't these points a teensy-weensy bit trivial here? I have been held prisoner in various football stadia unable to leave until the home fans have dispersed and I have been stuck in traffic jams while people exercise our democratic rights to demonstrate, but the royal family has yet to inconvenience me in any way whatsoever.

I did once bow to Princess Margaret as she conferred my degree upon me. Can't say it was an inconvenience or uncomfortable in any way. (I'd have been happy to bow, salute or place three fingers across my bared chest to my senior tutor had that been the accepted ceremonial form.) Nor did I repress a powerful desire to shake her warmly by the hand and say "Thanks a lot mate - you're a diamond Maggie".

I would have been prepared in WWII, to fight and die (preferably in a clerical capacity) for this nation and consequently for the monarch as head of state. But whilst I'm prepared to go to these lengths, I have as yet not so much as been asked not to cross the road.

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2002

I had a very interesting debate with my form in a PSE lesson last week. It was all part of the Citizenship stuff we have to do now.

I sat them in groups of four and gave them a piece of paper. They had to make two columns on the paper - one which listed "good things" about having a monarchy and one which listed "bad things". Having given them time to sort out their ideas (this is an attempt to get them to think of things themselves rather than regurgitate their parents' prejudices) we then sat in a circle and took turns giving our ideas.

These are 12/13 year old kids, several of whom show little respect for anything. Yet they voted over-whelmingly to keep the monarchy by the end of the discussion. It was fascinating. One lad - who can be a turd of the first degree on occasions - said without any prompting from me that the monarchy was important because it helped to create our national identity. Nearly fell off me seat at that point.

I know this doesn't actually contribute anything to the debate on the philosophy of monarchy but I thought you might be interested.

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2002

It isn't the most important thing in the world, but it isn't right either.

I don't like the whole concept of fox hunting, but I don't really think the energy being spent on controlling it is worth it either. Same with the royal family, whole thing is not right, pumping all the money in an unaccountable way at a family who wouldn't let Charles, say, marry a catholic if he wanted to.

Charles currently does very well out of his inherited Duchy of Cornwall estates and doesn't need to take any money from the civil list. I don't really see why he will therefore need to take £7.9m or whatever to do the same sot of job in the future. I don't want to get into the 'what do they pay nurses' side of things, but £7.9m to cut ribbons and host a few big garden parties is way over the top.

The Queen has enortmous political power but just doesn't choose to exercise it. That is potentially a very dangerous situation to have. The Australian government in the 70s fell because of her orders (through her appointee in a governor general). She may well not ever say no to signing a law but she does have the option so to do.

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2002

Very interesting Jacko. I think your point is absolutely central to the debate, and I'm as surprised as you obviously were by the opinions expressed by these kids.

I don't know anything about Australia Macbeth except that they wear those funny hats with corks in, but I'm always puzzled that the corks don't hang the other way up, them being down-under and all. Be that as it may however, just looking it up, I note that the Prison Governor Governor General is appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the elected Premier. The 1975 crisis was caused by a decision of the Governor General to go against the elected goverment, not by any decision of the Queen. In 1998 the Australians apparently argued themselves to a standstill about who should be in chaaarge of the sheep dip what they should replace the monarchy with and are still struggling with the concept of an elected President being able to overturn an elected Government. I think if the Queen had any power there they wouldn't beat us at the bliddy cricket the whole time.

The Duchy of Cornwall? Well I tend to be against inherited wealth myself (self interest you see - I never had any!) but I note that it has it's supporters looking at the Budget thread. Is the Duchy part of the monarch's wealth or owned outright by the Windsors or what? Meaning is it relevant to the debate about the Monarchy? - I don't know.

You can't seriously be bringing the £7.9m civil list for Charles into the debate because he doesn't get that until he is king - if he ever gets it at all - perhaps when he is king the rules would change - the civil list has reduced and is set to reduce every year from 1991 to 2011 in real terms.

The Queen does, I think have some powers in theory. In practice if she were to exercise them against an elected government, I am quite sure she would be swept away in months. But that is academic. The Queen (oddly enough for an all powerful monarch) bows to the will of the people - always. "My Government will do this that and the other blah blah blah" (Poor soul - why does she sit there and read it? Why doesn't she just say - "Read the bluddy thing yourselves - it's reahlly awfully tedious and this crown is giving me a fraightful headache - I'll scream if Black Rod bangs on that door agayne")

So far we have some gripes about the money (which seems minimal in comparison to the cost of a President), some gripes about power (which seem to have never been exercised), and some gripes about not being allowed to cross the road, although nobody has yet produced an example of this.

It's not really broke is it? Or if it is - what do you suggest it be replaced with? And if we are going to keep it, should we not retain a degree of respect and affection for it (the institution if not the incumbents).

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2002

One lad - who can be a turd of the first degree on occasions

How does this translate on the lad's end of term report Jacko? Does that count as a "Could try harder" or what? :-)

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2002

Living in one of the last few self -governing British Colonies, I tend to look at the issue from a different viewpoint. Albeit we are 700 miles off the coast of North Carolina, we are British, even to the point of driving on the left side of the road.

A few years ago the issue of independance came before the people. Our then government (Conservative) realising their grasp (having been the sole government for 30 + years) was slipping, decided to put the issue of independance on the table, this being their legacy and also trying to squash the oppositions (Labour) primary platform (the Labour party here was based on the idea of independance for many years). A referendum was held and ultimately the decision was to leave it the way it was.

Funny thing is, Labour then drops the Independance platform and ultimately dethrones the only Government Party our country has ever known.

How do we look at the Monarchy? Pretty much the same way you lot do. The thing is we accept it for what it is, a figurehead, a connection to something. It is better to have it, even in a limited "show" capacity. We have a Governor....he is the representative of the crown. He lives in a big house on a hill overlooking the capitol. He presides over all official ceremonies and such, but other than that is not involved in the day to day dealings of the country. Some find it a nuisance to have to support him, but I'd much rather support him than the lower life forms that inhabit our prisons.

I personally think England... Britain is one of the greatest countries in the world. The freedom and liberty you have is represented by a Crown. There are a lot worse places and a lot worse leaders you could live in and under. The monarchy is history, it commands respect worldwide, and furthermore, it separates you from the Americans, and shows that there are countries that can be just as successfull, just as prosperous, all the while maintaining an identity all your own.

You can't put a pricetag on that, and Yes I will bow my head in RESPECT for her majesty.

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2002

To be fair I have less trouble with the idea of supporting a monarchy than getting through the ideas: 1.that some peckers below them think they have earned the respect of millions (Lords and Earls, etc) 2. and the old school tie routine.

I had to laugh when I met up with a mate of mine from Johannesburg recently who's doing very OK for himself in London and he said he feels uncomfortable in meetings when he can sense the other parties to negotiations are looking for the hole in his nose where the bone used to go!

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2002

I don't see the problem with a semi-political Presidential system, like in Ireland. You have a directly elected head of state (unlike the collegiate State voting in the US), and a working parliamentary legislature with Prime Minister weilding power. In many ways the Irish President is a ceremonial figure, but also reflects the mood of the nation (where have I heard that phrase before?) and maintains a generally conservative tone.

When Mary Robinson was elected, it was as the first female President. Quite a remarkable stand in such a continuingly staunch male led nation. But the earth didn't open up and it rained and sunshined like usual.

The Monarchy is simply a wrong institution. Founded on corruption, murder, scandal, inter-marriage/breeding, double dealing, name changing (it was cousin Willy who started WW1), lies and incompetence. If a politician had as much scandal as the Windsors they'd be out on their ear. The Monarchy is a truly political animal, as it's only purpose is to maintain its position and power at any cost. The constitutional power of the monarch is minimal, so why bother at all?

We bother because of the conservative nature of British politics. We aren't very good at revolutions. Even when the British had the stomach to bin the King after the Civil War (who was confused about political realities, to say the least) we felt so guilty about it that Cromwell was offered the crown and later the monarchy was restored.

The thing is having an inherited head of state is as ridiculous as an inherited mathematician. Or an inherited driving instructor. If we only have the institution for show (all those tourist dollars) then how come Paris has so many visitors? In my 28 years I've seen the Queen once in the flesh - and to be honest, it could have been anyone wearing a matching green hat and coat. In 28 more years, do you think tomorrow's tourists will stay away just because as a nation we've moved on?

Finally, we should bin the monarchy for their own good. A number of people have said they respect the monarchy and the Royal Family. Well, to me it doesn't look like it. How much respect can be shown by a pack of photographers with long lenses? How much respect is there to insist 2 young teenagers walk in procession behind their mother's coffin for the benefit of the mob? How much respect is there in examining and criticising every aspect of their life, private and public? Princes William and Harry are born to all of this whether they like it or not. And if they don't play ball, the press will make it even more difficult for them.

So I say scrap the monarchy now...it's for the children.

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

Jonno, this 132 million you mentioned - is this income earned from property owned by the state? If so, then of course she should pay tax on it the same way the rest of us would if we were lucky enough to earn such extraordinary amounts. Apologies if I`ve misunderstood this, but a phrase like "paid to the Exchequer for the benefit of taxpayers" sounds as if she is doing us all a favour. (and yes, I`m aware that technically she is)

If memory serves the Queen only started paying taxes a decade or so ago, which means that for the previous 40 years her income was tax free. If her tax liability is 132 million a year then can I assume that she has escaped taxes of somewhere in the region of 5.25 BILLION pounds since she was crowned? All of a sudden the 8 million or so that we pay her does indeed seem like a pittance - although over 50 years it still comes to a cool 400 million pounds.

My primary objections to the monarchy are not financial - I was brought up to believe that all people are equal and I refuse to consider someone to be my superior by virtue of birthright.

Oh, and I`ve been inconvenienced by the Royal Family. I was all set to go to Anfield - match ticket purchased, Superapex non-refundable train ticket in hand, when the news about Di came through. Couldn`t make the rescheduled game and couldn`t get rid of my ticket either.....

Sparxx, where do you live, the Cayman Islands? BVI?

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

I`ve been inconvenienced by the Royal Family

Me too! I coundn't watch any or the three shopping channels on cable when TQM kicked it.

If the Royals are "Your Highness" are we "Your Lowness", I wouldn't bow to the buggers.

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

Another sickening aspect is the honours lists. What a blatant buying off exercise they are. Not that it's remotely likely to happen, but I'd hope if they ever tried to buy me off, I'd retain enough integrity to tell them to stuff it.

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

Let's have a referendum on whether we retain the Royals. Easy really. I for one would agonize long and hard over which way I'd vote. Not. If however the majority of the Country wanted to keep circus going then I'd go with the flow, I wouldn't be happy about it but at least it'd have been a democratic decision.

BTW, I too was mightily inconvenienced when Di's death resulted in the Liverpool game being postponed. She wasn't exactly an enthusiast of the beautiful game was she? I bet her and Dodi wouldn't have been watching the game in some Sports Bar in Paris would they? She didn't give a stuff about football or football fans so why the hell should thousands of us have been buggered about when she met her maker?

I could understand it if it had been the day after Bobby Moore's death or even one of the managerial greats like Shankly or Stein - people who contributed massively to the game we love so much. But not some horsey ra who was on a dirty weekend with her playboy arab lover.

One more thing Jonno, why the hell did you 'bow' to Princess Margaret? were you feeling inferior to her? did you not feel ever so slightly ridiculous afterwards?

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

Thanks for the welcome Screacher, I'm usually around but don't have time to post and yes, this one is a little close to 'work'.

Jonno my main point was/is that no one is 'born to reign over me'. You think the other points are trivial, fair enough. I work close to the palace and have been inconvenienced by 'royalty on the move' - the fuss generated irritates me, however I am not a discourteous individual. I would go for an elected head of state - viva la republic or some such.

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

The monarchy does indeed hold a lot of political power, the fact that they 'hopefully' will never use any of it is cold comfort. It is in fact illegal to commit any anti-monarchist statements to print an anachronistic law that some newspapers have been trying to have repealed without success.

There is another more subtle political influence that the monarchy represents. They are our 'highnesses' they are 'the best of British', our representatives and lets face it in the eyes of the monarchists, 'our betters'. In days of yore they might have acted as a unifying force but only for the white protestant creed that bore them. In a multi-cultural society they are at best insignificant and at worst a sinister representation of what many believe our country's finest virtues to be: white, christian, upper class, superior, hunting, fishing 'n' shooting.

What price an Asian king, a black princess, a Jewish prince? A president is a post that all can aspire to. A monarch is a deiberately remote symbol, a reminder of a grovelling past when everyone knew their place. That is why they comfort so many, I suppose Freud would say that we all long to return to the mother's breast, peacefully powerless.

I would prefer a head of state to REPRESENT me not belittle me, I feel no kinship with the Windsors so how can they represent me. Of course I would have issues with a President Blair or Hague but at least I could aim to replace them not have to wait to see if their kids could do any better.

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

I haven't given the subject an aweful lot of thought (oops..await being ripped apart by those on here that obviously have ;-)) but I suppose I'm comfortably resigned to the idea of a Monarchy because I don't see them as 'reigning over me' at all. I don't see them as superior beings, and although I can see certain privileges bestowed on them, I for one would not want their position. They are bred to be the slaves of the State, and for the most part do a creditable job. The ones that don't get sidelined. The size of the Civil List (ie the hangers on) bugs me a little, but I haven't studied it so wouldn't want to comment in any detail.

An elected Republic may seem fairer than the inherited system, but the possible danger might be the type of person the position would attract. IMO it would attract self-serving megalomaniac types (like most politician ;-) ) who would struggle to stay as apolitical and dignified as the strange breed that is indoctrinated for the task ahead from an early age. Once inbreeding starts to limit the ability of potential leaders, an alternative has always been found. This step will be an interesting one in modern times!!

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

Al - I live in Bermuda.

I can't imagine how you lot feel put out by this! This is a historical and INTERNATIONALLY respected ambassador of your country!!!! It would seem that this is more about ££££ than about a monarchy... let me ask you all one question....

You spend more money on rapists, thieves, drug pushers and murderers than you do on the Monarchy, which is only a positive, yet no one debates the taxpayers money going to support these infidels, why is that?

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

I'm with you Pete....never really given it much thought, I don't feel inferior to them in any way shape or form and as you mentioned I mostly pity them, it's not a position I would want...

Sparxx, I think you're going off on one a little bit mate...you aren't going to hear anyone who wants to spend money on criminals etc...this is a totally seperate debate....

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

Seems like a lot of old ground is being gone over. For what it's worth, probably not a lot, my two penneth is that the Royal Family is an anachronistic institution. I think that people should get where they are as a result of effort and ability, the RF is undemocratic and living in the past, the tradition argument doesn't hold water because it can be used for a range of things many on here wouldn't want to see preserved such as fox-hunting. Traditionally women didn't have the vote, bear baiting was popular, children swept chimneys. I hear a Dick Van Dyke song coming along! Don't bring in money - what about Versailles etc. Don't and shouldn't provide role models - William goes hunting deer etc. Get rid and have a president.

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

Sparxx, in some ways it`s irrelevant whether the current monarch is doing a good or bad job - the principle is important and the system basically means that our next "ambassador" might be a complete joke.

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

Having given the subject a bit more thought (approx. 5 mins ;-)), is it in fact possible to have a democratically elected a-political leader? I'm using 'political' in a broad sense, as it is obviously possible for them not be attached to a political party, but if there is to be an election of some sort, then in order to win that election, the person would have to be a 'political' animal. They would have to canvas votes, present themselves as a candidate, put forward their beliefs and views (or what they reckon would get them elected) etc etc - all particular skills not necessarily suited to the end role.

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

I would like to think that having a president would bring us two enormous benefits:

1) The vacuum at the top would be filled whereby the head of state actually exercises the power invested in them instead of rubber- stamping things which might very well be detrimental to the country but are popular with the party in power.

2) Split up this relentless march to a 2-part state by having a president as the balance of power.

How different would the last 10 years have been if we had a democratically elected head of state? At present, the true leader of the country is the PM. There is no way on earth that John Major would have been able to become our leader without so much as a by-your- leave and it is far more likely that Paddy Ashdown would have been head of state to control the extremes of the other 2 parties.

This is the unacceptable face of British politics whereby democracy is seen as the right to chose between rafts of policies presented by a series of parties but you are given no say as to who should actually lead the country. I can guarantee that millions of lifelong Labour supporters would have been delighted to vote in Labour but would have chosen someone with some personality and integrity to lead them. We'd have been more likely to see a Blairite Labour government with Tony Benn as a directly elected President rather than this horrible, insincere, toadying little bastard imagining that because the Tories are unelectable that he is somehow popular: put it to the test, run for president.

Don't kid yourself that the RF are acting like some kind of wonderful referee who sees no reason to interrupt the game, it's actually a filthy game and they don't have a pea in the whistle. It will be the most democratic thing we've ever managed if at one remove you can say who you want to lead the country. It certainly compares favourably to choosing which party you least dislike and having them appoint one of themsleves as leader (let alone changing jockeys half way through the race) not to mention pretending that the accidents of birth provided by a union between a German and a Greek should somehow provide a an acceptable head of state.

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

Solid argument for a Presidential role, but does it preclude having a 'Monarch' (Obviously by definition it does, but I mean a redefinition of the position). Would it be possible to have a Monarchy, a President (or at least the role you explain) and a PM? It would obviously require a reduced role for the Monarchy and the relinquishing of their paper power, but perhaps it's time we stopped pretending the Queen is the head of state (I believe if she ever excercised her power on something significant, the end would be nigh for the Monarchy). Is there a role for a symbolic apolitical figurehead in modern Britain, and can we afford it? Or perhaps the Presidential role should be conducted by a beefed up and democratised House of Lords? (Wow..That's now 10 mins thought and counting ;-) )

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

Apologies Jonno - just reread one of your postings, please disregard my 'bowing' comment.

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

I imagine the monarchy would retain the leadership of the Anglican Church, but all other powers invested in the monarch would necessarily have to be removed.

And if it's all too much for the younger royals, I'm sure a 4 week stint in Val d'Isere would make them all feel a lot better.

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

Well done kids....a very good debate with not a jot of mudslinging.

You can all have extra pudding with your tea tonight :)

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

Outsider observation here...

I like the suggestion of following a model like the Irish. IMO, it's the closest thing I've seen to a governing system that 'works'. Though I'm sure it has it's own problems, nothing is perfect. I'm definitely not an expert on politics and monarchies.

Those who think an elected President is the answer need only look at the US to see many of the same complaints people have about Britain's Royal Family can be made for the US President. Sure, they say anyone can run for the office, but in reality it's older, white guys that get elected(Kennedy and Clinton being the exceptions). Geraldine Ferraro was torn apart when she ran as VP. Republicans would be a pack of starved wolves turned loose on the last piece of meat in the universe if Hilary Clinton tried to run. Colin Powell is probably the only black man with a real chance if he wanted to run, but he would struggle, I think. But whoever submits to that job will have their lives examined as closely as the Royals, so anyone with a lick of sense or who cares about their families will never run. The very people who probably could do a good job. So we're stuck with an appointed (Until the day I die, I will refuse to say he was elected) muppet in the White House. He might as well be a king, because he isn't running this country anymore than the Queen of England runs hers, and he's got a harder time handling the glare of the public eye because he wasn't bred to be a leader. And he does indeed sign things because he's told to, as well as holding meetings away from the public eye to push through legislation the party knows isn't popular. I don't think any President in my lifetime could stand up to the microscope of scrutiny as it is today(Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan *ptuh*, Bush, Clinton, Shrub*ptuh*).

Also, your life under an elected(or appointed) President can be interrupted just as easily as under a monarch. I've been stuck in traffic or not been allowed to cross streets(at rush hour!) because the area was frozen awaiting the passing of a presidential motorcade. It irks just as much when it's a President you didn't vote for and don't like, as for a monarch.

I guess the point of my ranting (If there is one ;-) ) is that the grass isn't always greener, be careful what you ask for, etc etc. Personally, I think the monarchy is great. Yes, speaking as a foreigner who sees it as being as much a part of Britain as Shakespeare, football, the Cliffs of Dover, Stonehenge, etc. I don't see the Queen as having any real political power, although technically she does if she wanted to use it. When British politics are discussed here it's all about the Prime Minister and Parliament. The Queen doesn't fly over overseas to discuss foreign policy, world leader talk to the PM when they go to Britain. I do think if the majority of the British people wanted the monarchy out, it would be easy enough to have a referendum to get rid of them. The Queen and family are hardly going to start executing the serfs for rising up. It would only hasten their departure as it wouldn't be terribly popular overseas. I do think it's kind of weird that the PM is not elected by the people, though at least there's no pretense of it being so(as in the US). I'd like to see the monarchy kept as a purely ceremonial thing(which is really all it is now), and perhaps improvements to the elected government so it has more of a chance of representing the people.

Outsider views over.... :-)

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

F@ck off you patronising sh@te! Let me tell you where to shove your pudding ;-)))

Don't suppose I'll be getting mine now....unless it's Mississippi Mudslinging Pie

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

Er. In case there's any confusion, the mock mud was aimed at Gav, not you Ciara ;-))

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

LOL, Pete. I didn't think I was being that bad, but when I get ranting sometimes things don't come out quite as I mean. ;-)

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

The US Presidential system is very different to those I've heard proposed or hinted at here. The US has a single member executive i.e. the Prez IS the government. Separated from the Legislature who make the laws and check the President's powers to execute and approve law (ok, he has some legislative powers). We have the executive/govt drawn from and a permanent part of the legislature. So a US Pres system (one where you get elected to pass maybe 15 laws a year) is probably not the best comparison for a UK one (where dozens of laws are passed).

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

Hahaha...that'll learn ya! ;))

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

I wasn't claiming it was the same as in the UK, just observations from my own experience, and pointing out that other systems of government have flaws. I did say I think the Irish model is one of the better one.

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

ones. :-)

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

Founded on corruption, murder, scandal, inter-marriage/breeding, double dealing, name changing (it was cousin Willy who started WW1), lies and incompetence.

I won't have the board of NUFC spoken of in this disgraceful manner Could be more or less speaking about any political party there. What the Monarchy is founded on is an irrelevance to the debate of whether it serves us well at the moment.

The Monarchy is a truly political animal, as it's only purpose is to maintain its position and power at any cost. The constitutional power of the monarch is minimal, so why bother at all?

Yeah - run that by me again would you? It's purpose is to maintain it's power and it hasn't got any power. Hmmm. Not doing a very good job then is it?

We bother because of the conservative nature of British politics. We aren't very good at revolutions.

And your point is exactly? British politics has served us reasonably well in terms of our per capita incomes relative to the rest of the globe for at least 200 years. I dunno which countries you mean that are "good at revolutions". Cuba? Afghanistan? Russia? China? Most of South America? Most of Africa? We are not good at revolutions because our political system (Nominally headed by The Monarchy) has adapted itself superbly to the will of the people, rendering revolution unnecessary.

The thing is having an inherited head of state is as ridiculous as an inherited mathematician.

For a start the role of a mathematician is so vastly different from that of head of state. The role of Head of State is all encompassing affecting every aspect of the incumbent's life. A mathematician is a job. The offspring of mathematicians are possibly more likely to have a feel for that subject than kids on average because of the cultural milieu they are raised in. The inherited Monarch is taught the role from the cradle. There is no comparison.

If we only have the institution for show (all those tourist dollars) then how come Paris has so many visitors?

I do despise the use of spurious logical tricks to score points- the above sentence has no place in a logical debate. Niagara falls hasn't got a monarchy but has lots of visitors. How many more people would visit Paris to see the colour being trooped? - lol -Anyway - you established earlier that it's not for show but that "it's only purpose is to maintain its position and power", a non-existant power as you say elsewhere.

Jonno, this 132 million you mentioned - is this income earned from property owned by the state?

This is the income from the Crown Estates which used to be the income of the Monarch but was conceded by the Monarch to the state - erm - apparently - the quote is verbatim from the web-site. The Queen's Civil list income of £8m is mainly paid as salaries to her staff.

My primary objections to the monarchy are not financial - I was brought up to believe that all people are equal and I refuse to consider someone to be my superior by virtue of birthright.

That the members of the Royal Family are superior has never been stated by anyone supporting the rentention of the Monarchy in this debate.

Oh, and I`ve been inconvenienced by the Royal Family. I was all set to go to Anfield - match ticket purchased, Superapex non-refundable train ticket in hand, when the news about Di came through.

That would be a decision taken by the FA I imagine? I wonder if the FA would have decided similarly in the event of the death of our President or Presidential close personal family member? I don't know. (Defending the Monarchy is difficult enough without me being asked to speak for the FA as well! - lol)

Another sickening aspect is the honours lists.

Can we stay on topic please? Honours lists are drawn up by our elected Prime Minister and are nothing to do with the Monarch.

Let's have a referendum on whether we retain the Royals. Easy really. I for one would agonize long and hard over which way I'd vote.

Excellent idea. I've always been a fan of democracy.

BTW, I too was mightily inconvenienced when Di's death resulted in the Liverpool game being postponed.

I refer the right honourable gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago ...

But not some horsey ra who was on a dirty weekend with her playboy arab lover.

Oh dear, we mustn't let our prejudices or a hint of racism creep in here must we ...

One more thing Jonno, why the hell did you 'bow' to Princess Margaret? were you feeling inferior to her? did you not feel ever so slightly ridiculous afterwards?

As I said in the piece, I did it because it was part of the ceremony and if that ceremony had included me rolling up a trouser leg and giving a wolf cub's salute to a picture of William Shakespeare I'd have gone along with it - had that been the accepted traditional form.

Inferior to her? Bollox! I was getting my degree! In front of me mam giving her one of the proudest and happiest days of her life! I was inferior to nobody that day!!! :-) I'll bet poor old Margaret was fairly bored with the whole thing but I like to think that the sight of my flowing locks brought a little colour into her drab day - me inferior? - hehehe. (I heard she was the life and soul of the party at the Student's Union Ball that evening, causing her bodyguards all manner of problems as they struggled to keep pace with her across the dancefloor. Quite a feisty and fun lady by all accounts)

Jonno my main point was/is that no one is 'born to reign over me'.

I'm not sure what reigning over us means. They have no power. You are governed by people we have elected.

I work close to the palace and have been inconvenienced by 'royalty on the move' - the fuss generated irritates me, however I am not a discourteous individual. I would go for an elected head of state - viva la republic or some such.

Well I'm sure that would have it's merits and I'm disappointed they have barely been mentioned here. It is to be hoped that for your sake the Palace doesn't become the official residence of the new President, otherwise I think you'll find the inconvenience will continue much as before but at least the inconvenience will have been caused by someone you voted for. Or possibly against.

What price an Asian king, a black princess, a Jewish prince?

Good point - indeed - part of the anachronism I used in the first sentence of the thread. Well - let a referendum decide. But the real positions of power in our society, politicians, business leaders etc are open to ALL, far more so than in the country of origin of most of the immigration groups you mention, in one of the least racist countries on Earth.

a reminder of a grovelling past when everyone knew their place. That is why they comfort so many

Nice idea. Of course you won't be able to produce a shred of evidence to support it - it will be easier to progress the debate with harder information.

I haven't given the subject an aweful lot of thought

I hope the pun was intended Pete (awe-ful) - it's a beauty! Join the club. I could not have imagined I would ever have advanced this position and I've only glanced at a couple of web sites in trying to put some weight into the argument.

I don't see them as 'reigning over me' at all. I don't see them as superior beings, and although I can see certain privileges bestowed on them, I for one would not want their position.

Exactly. That is why I'm puzzled at personal abuse of the Royals who had less choice in their roles than every single one of us. I'm perfectly open to critique of the institution but the incumbents are trapped in it as much as enjoying it's privileges.

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

Actually Jonno I was using the original Middle English spelling of awful to try to draw parallels with the length of time we have had a Monarch. ;-)

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

Then free them and us at the same time! Abolish the monarchy and save us all from the clearly painful vision of Prince Charles walking behind his granny's coffin in front of tv cameras.

RE The power thing. Obviously I wasn't clear enough. The monarchy has power in that it maintains its position of authority/head of the armed forces/consent for legislation. Although these are mostly ceremonial powers the voice and opinions of the royals (namely the PoW) carries a lot of weight. It has power in maintaining its position as head of state and ensuring the crown is successfully passed on to the next generation.

And there is every comparison between any job and that of Head of State. Being a head of state is a job - not quite like any other, but a job nevertheless. A leader in a professional field may also find their work impinging on all aspects of their life. I'm sure many of us find their work affects their day to day lives. Many would probably not be as successful had their private/home life not been sacrificed to some degree. And like other jobs, your kids don't expect to take over your position when you die! One may share an interest being brought up in a family of chemical engineers, for instance, but you wouldn't expect to be Chair of ICI because your dad was!

I spoke about France as a comparison of a republic with a history of monarchs. Many have argued (like my missus) that the tourists come for the Queen. I disagree. Tourists would come no matter what head of state we had. Buck House will still be there.

Successful revolutions I had in mind were those in France and USA. In this country we have a long history of slow change rather than radical ones. That has strengths, as you say, but also weaknesses. Among the weaknesses being the application of democratic principle in our institutions e.g. reform of the House of Lords, taxation of the monarch's income.

I would also like to hear someone defend the public spectacle of the royal's enforced public mourning.

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

Jonno, I did ask you to disregard my 'bowing' comment.

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

Very thought-provoking thread.

It seems to me that in modern Britain the Monarchy is a national figurehead that fills a purely ceremonial role. For all practical purposes The Queen has no political power whatsoever, and to suggest she does is misleading in this particular discussion - the Monarchy and the UK Political System are entirely different and separate issues.

The ceremonial role of the Monarchy seems to me to be of considerable use, and indeed value to us as signifcant net income is most certainly derived from related tourism.

The Queen seems to me to be a wonderful person and very fine ambassador our nation. If she were ultimately replaced by a prat who abused his/her position, or became a bad ambassador, I really don't think that prat would survive very long at all. The continuation of the Monarchy is dictated entirely by popular opinion - if that opinion turned highly negative the Government of the day would have no choice but to remove them, and quickly.

Imo the Monarchy should be retained for as long as they are useful and making a positive contribution to the country.

Now, to the political system.........................!

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

Was the French Revolution successful, Bobby? It was as bloody as they come, with most using it as a completely self-serving opportunity to better their own positions at the expense of their peers. Note I say peers, not 'superiors'. Initially the result was a dictatorship, that ended up installing it's own hereditary system of power.

Re justifying the spectacle of public mourning, I'll give it a go. Their role is not to privately mourn the passing of a family member, but to demonstrate almost symbolically the dignity and courage that in their opinion should be shown in such circumstances. Their role is to demonstrate a set of morals and code of behaviour (sometimes out of kilter with the modern world). We might not agree, but it gives us terms of reference for our own behaviour. (hmmm...not convinced with what I've just said, but I'll post it anyway, what the hell ;-) )

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2002

Sorry DSS - my reply was "under construction" during the time you posted that.

-- Anonymous, April 23, 2002

No probs Jonno. I think we're probably miles apart on this issue. "Vive la difference", as they say in that soon-to-be-Nazi state across the Channel.

-- Anonymous, April 23, 2002

Just as a slight aside on your comment Dave...Did anyone notice that the Daily Mail today did an article showing the spread of very right wing politics across europe, obviously brought about by Le Pen in France.....they totally neglected to mention the upsurge in support for the BNP in this country....they were just more interested in slagging off the europeans....

-- Anonymous, April 23, 2002

Cheers Pete - well the classic answer to what effect the French Revolution had is that it's too early to tell :-) It was certainly a bloody episode, and not exactly the workers uprising of 1840s Paris but it was a great example of power being taken back by ordinary people. Of course the exercise of the newly found power was demonstrated by the systematic butchery of the aristocrats: men, womena and children. But more than 200 years later (minus a monarch) France is pretty successful. Just as long as Le Prick is stopped...

RE public mourning. I know why the royals were paraded in front of the public and tv cameras, I just think it's wrong.

-- Anonymous, April 23, 2002

Bobby, I hope you realise that every time you post on this thread, you just succeed in maintaining 'the Monarchy's' dominant position. Well, on the BBS list of replies anyway ;-)

-- Anonymous, April 23, 2002

Jonno, you've done your usual line by line demolition job of someone elses offering.

I'd hate to do the saem but your original can be cut badly too.

because of it's uniqueness it is useful to retain it, well only in an endangered species sort of way, don't let Prince Philip out with a gun in front of the Queen

it's capacity ... to unite in a non-political way well clearly on here it isn't a uniting force

the cost of the Royal Family is negligible only because the Crown Estates give money back to the nation, but the nation own them don't they

the cost of periodic elections presumably about matches up with the cost of running funerals and weddings

who funds the Grants-in-Aid that maintain the 5 royal homes you mention. FIVE homes, what president would get away with five homes as a prerequisite ? Not counting the Edinburgh pad, nor Balmoral.

the great source of attraction for tourists seems to be a reason for horrible foreigners to have a Queen, not us

-- Anonymous, April 23, 2002