State Opening of Parliament

SporadicAddick

PrincessFiona said:

SporadicAddick said:

PrincessFiona said:

Return of the SE7 said:

France has far more tourism than the UK. Whatever happened to their monarchy?

Just looked into this and found conflicting statistics; some showing the UK with more revenue from tourism that France, but another source saying the reverse

'That year, inbound tourism receipts in Spain amounted to 92 billion U.S. dollars, recovering from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom and France followed in the ranking in 2023, with tourism receipts totaling around 74 billion and 69 billion U.S. dollars, respectively.5 Jun 2024'

I've always avoided the tourism income debate in any defence of the Constitutional Monarchy in the UK. It don't exist as a tourist attraction, and whilst I believe tourism income would likely reduce in the absence of a Monarch, it is negligible. It is also irrelevent. 

Tourist comparisons with other countries are also irrelevant, as the reason for tourism to those countries is different. Spain has beaches that are warm. France has them too, and mountains you can ski on (as well as Paris). 

The Royal Family and the pomp and circumstance is definitely deemed contributing significantly to the income from tourism in the UK, notably London and is not negligible nor irrelevant.

I gave some figures compared to France in response to another comment. It just goes to show how much it all does contribute since we don't have many of the attractions you mentioned France indeed has that the UK doesn't

I think the "Paris" debate is relevant. No constitutional Monarch or pomp and circumstance to talk of, but huge tourism numbers. If we had no pomp and circumstance, tourists would still flock here for the same reasons as they flock to Paris - Iconic sights, museums, culture etc. etc.

Jints

If we were starting from scratch I'd be in favour of a Republic. As we are not starting from scratch, creating a republic would cost a fortune, paralyse politics for years and cause divisiveness that would make Brexit like a walk in the park. It would be absolutely horrendous. 

soapy_jones

Usual arguements from both sides.  The UK constitution is a centuries old compromise.  If it works, it works for those in power, that is a natural human condition I'm afraid. Lot's to sort first before you start dismantling this frivolous load of guff...

Just saying, proportional representation for a start?

Chizz

Rizzo said:

Chizz said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

The 22nd Amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America states that a president may only serve a maximum of two four years terms. I’m pretty sure even Donald wouldn’t seek to change that. 

This is right.  But the key word is "amendment".  What's to stop another amendment being put in place to allow a third, non-consecutive term?  And then, later a third consecutive term?  And so on? 

The short answer is that it requires a two thirds vote of both houses. I can't see that happening anytime soon even if Project 2025 gets off the ground. 

It's not inconceivable that the requirement for a two-thirds majority could be amended

Chizz

SporadicAddick said:

PrincessFiona said:

SporadicAddick said:

PrincessFiona said:

Return of the SE7 said:

France has far more tourism than the UK. Whatever happened to their monarchy?

Just looked into this and found conflicting statistics; some showing the UK with more revenue from tourism that France, but another source saying the reverse

'That year, inbound tourism receipts in Spain amounted to 92 billion U.S. dollars, recovering from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom and France followed in the ranking in 2023, with tourism receipts totaling around 74 billion and 69 billion U.S. dollars, respectively.5 Jun 2024'

I've always avoided the tourism income debate in any defence of the Constitutional Monarchy in the UK. It don't exist as a tourist attraction, and whilst I believe tourism income would likely reduce in the absence of a Monarch, it is negligible. It is also irrelevent. 

Tourist comparisons with other countries are also irrelevant, as the reason for tourism to those countries is different. Spain has beaches that are warm. France has them too, and mountains you can ski on (as well as Paris). 

The Royal Family and the pomp and circumstance is definitely deemed contributing significantly to the income from tourism in the UK, notably London and is not negligible nor irrelevant.

I gave some figures compared to France in response to another comment. It just goes to show how much it all does contribute since we don't have many of the attractions you mentioned France indeed has that the UK doesn't

I think the "Paris" debate is relevant. No constitutional Monarch or pomp and circumstance to talk of, but huge tourism numbers. If we had no pomp and circumstance, tourists would still flock here for the same reasons as they flock to Paris - Iconic sights, museums, culture etc. etc.

*ceremony. 

Pomp and Circumstance is a piece of music. Often played at ceremonies. 

ShootersHillGuru

PrincessFiona said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Surely the entire notion of elevating one family above and beyond all others in the land and to fawn over them swear allegiance to them and lavish them with untold luxury, wealth and property is beyond parody isn’t it ? I understand that the individuals here shoulder no responsibility for the accident of their birth but I’m incredulous that anybody doesn’t find the whole thing laughably funny.

It's not like they have the equivalent in other countries

So what !

PrincessFiona

Rizzo said:

PrincessFiona said:

SporadicAddick said:

PrincessFiona said:

Return of the SE7 said:

France has far more tourism than the UK. Whatever happened to their monarchy?

Just looked into this and found conflicting statistics; some showing the UK with more revenue from tourism that France, but another source saying the reverse

'That year, inbound tourism receipts in Spain amounted to 92 billion U.S. dollars, recovering from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom and France followed in the ranking in 2023, with tourism receipts totaling around 74 billion and 69 billion U.S. dollars, respectively.5 Jun 2024'

I've always avoided the tourism income debate in any defence of the Constitutional Monarchy in the UK. It don't exist as a tourist attraction, and whilst I believe tourism income would likely reduce in the absence of a Monarch, it is negligible. It is also irrelevent. 

Tourist comparisons with other countries are also irrelevant, as the reason for tourism to those countries is different. Spain has beaches that are warm. France has them too, and mountains you can ski on (as well as Paris). 

The Royal Family and the pomp and circumstance is definitely deemed contributing significantly to the income from tourism in the UK, notably London and is not negligible nor irrelevant.

I gave some figures compared to France in response to another comment. It just goes to show how much it all does contribute since we don't have many of the attractions you mentioned France indeed has that the UK doesn't

I've not seen any evidence to suggest that tourism would decline significantly if the monarchy was no longer in place. Tourists come to see palaces, crowns, carriages etc, all of which would still exist even without the stuffed ermine robes that currently occupy them. The Palace of Versailles is orders of magnitude more popular as a tourist destination than Buckingham Palace and the French don't have a monarch or royal family. 

Probably because it hasn't been asked or projected. Well it sems many people disagree with you. You're no comparing like for like and one minute you aren't comparing France and now you are - so a reasonable discussion with you about the subject seems unachievable

PrincessFiona

Chizz said:

SporadicAddick said:

PrincessFiona said:

SporadicAddick said:

PrincessFiona said:

Return of the SE7 said:

France has far more tourism than the UK. Whatever happened to their monarchy?

Just looked into this and found conflicting statistics; some showing the UK with more revenue from tourism that France, but another source saying the reverse

'That year, inbound tourism receipts in Spain amounted to 92 billion U.S. dollars, recovering from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom and France followed in the ranking in 2023, with tourism receipts totaling around 74 billion and 69 billion U.S. dollars, respectively.5 Jun 2024'

I've always avoided the tourism income debate in any defence of the Constitutional Monarchy in the UK. It don't exist as a tourist attraction, and whilst I believe tourism income would likely reduce in the absence of a Monarch, it is negligible. It is also irrelevent. 

Tourist comparisons with other countries are also irrelevant, as the reason for tourism to those countries is different. Spain has beaches that are warm. France has them too, and mountains you can ski on (as well as Paris). 

The Royal Family and the pomp and circumstance is definitely deemed contributing significantly to the income from tourism in the UK, notably London and is not negligible nor irrelevant.

I gave some figures compared to France in response to another comment. It just goes to show how much it all does contribute since we don't have many of the attractions you mentioned France indeed has that the UK doesn't

I think the "Paris" debate is relevant. No constitutional Monarch or pomp and circumstance to talk of, but huge tourism numbers. If we had no pomp and circumstance, tourists would still flock here for the same reasons as they flock to Paris - Iconic sights, museums, culture etc. etc.

*ceremony. 

Pomp and Circumstance is a piece of music. Often played at ceremonies. 

'What does in pomp and circumstance mean?

Formal and impressive ceremony. Additional Information. This comes from Shakespeare's play Othello and refers to the impressive clothes, decorations, music, etc. that are part of an official ceremony.'

with lower case 'c'

PrincessFiona

ShootersHillGuru said:

PrincessFiona said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Surely the entire notion of elevating one family above and beyond all others in the land and to fawn over them swear allegiance to them and lavish them with untold luxury, wealth and property is beyond parody isn’t it ? I understand that the individuals here shoulder no responsibility for the accident of their birth but I’m incredulous that anybody doesn’t find the whole thing laughably funny.

It's not like they have the equivalent in other countries

So what !

Whoosh!!

bobmunro

seth plum said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Surely the entire notion of elevating one family above and beyond all others in the land and to fawn over them swear allegiance to them and lavish them with untold luxury, wealth and property is beyond parody isn’t it ? I understand that the individuals here shoulder no responsibility for the accident of their birth but I’m incredulous that anybody doesn’t find the whole thing laughably funny.

This is 100% true.
The current situation has come about organically.
My concern is how to avoid some kind of dictatorship, for that this ‘democracy’ would need a highly detailed and foolproof plan for the transition that would need to come about in order to make the ‘Royals’ have the same status as the rest of us.
The plan years ago in France was a lot of heads being chopped off, and in Russia a basement in Ekaterinburg.

The Irish system seems to be very effective at avoiding that!

• The President of Ireland is elected to a seven-year term of office and no person may serve more than two terms. The current President is Michael D. Higgins.
• The President, who does not have an executive or policy role, exercises his/her formal powers and functions on the advice of the Government.
• The President has the power to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court for a judgment on its constitutionality. He/she may seek advice from the Council of State and refer the Bill to the Irish Supreme Court for a ruling on whether it complies with the Constitution.

seth plum

bobmunro said:

seth plum said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Surely the entire notion of elevating one family above and beyond all others in the land and to fawn over them swear allegiance to them and lavish them with untold luxury, wealth and property is beyond parody isn’t it ? I understand that the individuals here shoulder no responsibility for the accident of their birth but I’m incredulous that anybody doesn’t find the whole thing laughably funny.

This is 100% true.
The current situation has come about organically.
My concern is how to avoid some kind of dictatorship, for that this ‘democracy’ would need a highly detailed and foolproof plan for the transition that would need to come about in order to make the ‘Royals’ have the same status as the rest of us.
The plan years ago in France was a lot of heads being chopped off, and in Russia a basement in Ekaterinburg.

The Irish system seems to be very effective at avoiding that!

• The President of Ireland is elected to a seven-year term of office and no person may serve more than two terms. The current President is Michael D. Higgins.
• The President, who does not have an executive or policy role, exercises his/her formal powers and functions on the advice of the Government.
• The President has the power to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court for a judgment on its constitutionality. He/she may seek advice from the Council of State and refer the Bill to the Irish Supreme Court for a ruling on whether it complies with the Constitution.

Well I totally agree that the Irish system is a good one. For a start there is a written constitution.
As my brother who lives in Ballycasey once said to me, the class divide in the Irish republic is non existent because one person’s dad and another person’s dad would have been standing next to each other pissing into the same pot.
The UK, or most specifically England, is the only country where I have ever heard somebody say about another person that they should ‘know their place’!

bobmunro

seth plum said:

bobmunro said:

seth plum said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Surely the entire notion of elevating one family above and beyond all others in the land and to fawn over them swear allegiance to them and lavish them with untold luxury, wealth and property is beyond parody isn’t it ? I understand that the individuals here shoulder no responsibility for the accident of their birth but I’m incredulous that anybody doesn’t find the whole thing laughably funny.

This is 100% true.
The current situation has come about organically.
My concern is how to avoid some kind of dictatorship, for that this ‘democracy’ would need a highly detailed and foolproof plan for the transition that would need to come about in order to make the ‘Royals’ have the same status as the rest of us.
The plan years ago in France was a lot of heads being chopped off, and in Russia a basement in Ekaterinburg.

The Irish system seems to be very effective at avoiding that!

• The President of Ireland is elected to a seven-year term of office and no person may serve more than two terms. The current President is Michael D. Higgins.
• The President, who does not have an executive or policy role, exercises his/her formal powers and functions on the advice of the Government.
• The President has the power to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court for a judgment on its constitutionality. He/she may seek advice from the Council of State and refer the Bill to the Irish Supreme Court for a ruling on whether it complies with the Constitution.

Well I totally agree that the Irish system is a good one. For a start there is a written constitution.
As my brother who lives in Ballycasey once said to me, the class divide in the Irish republic is non existent because one person’s dad and another person’s dad would have been standing next to each other pissing into the same pot.
The UK, or most specifically England, is the only country where I have ever heard somebody say about another person that they should ‘know their place’!

I can't imagine that conversation takes place on more than a few very rare occasions by idiots, and it will not be isolated to England - I have never in my 67 years on this planet heard anyone say that in relation to class, apart from:

seth plum

Yet that sketch would have been based on something in the culture, unless it was thought up as a completely fresh off the wall idea related to nothing experienced.

ShootersHillGuru

PrincessFiona said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

PrincessFiona said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Surely the entire notion of elevating one family above and beyond all others in the land and to fawn over them swear allegiance to them and lavish them with untold luxury, wealth and property is beyond parody isn’t it ? I understand that the individuals here shoulder no responsibility for the accident of their birth but I’m incredulous that anybody doesn’t find the whole thing laughably funny.

It's not like they have the equivalent in other countries

So what !

Whoosh!!

Comparing the fact that some other nations have royal families has no meaning as to the discussion about the British monarchy. What other royal families have the same lavished upon them as ours does. None. 

Rizzo

PrincessFiona said:

Rizzo said:

PrincessFiona said:

SporadicAddick said:

PrincessFiona said:

Return of the SE7 said:

France has far more tourism than the UK. Whatever happened to their monarchy?

Just looked into this and found conflicting statistics; some showing the UK with more revenue from tourism that France, but another source saying the reverse

'That year, inbound tourism receipts in Spain amounted to 92 billion U.S. dollars, recovering from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom and France followed in the ranking in 2023, with tourism receipts totaling around 74 billion and 69 billion U.S. dollars, respectively.5 Jun 2024'

I've always avoided the tourism income debate in any defence of the Constitutional Monarchy in the UK. It don't exist as a tourist attraction, and whilst I believe tourism income would likely reduce in the absence of a Monarch, it is negligible. It is also irrelevent. 

Tourist comparisons with other countries are also irrelevant, as the reason for tourism to those countries is different. Spain has beaches that are warm. France has them too, and mountains you can ski on (as well as Paris). 

The Royal Family and the pomp and circumstance is definitely deemed contributing significantly to the income from tourism in the UK, notably London and is not negligible nor irrelevant.

I gave some figures compared to France in response to another comment. It just goes to show how much it all does contribute since we don't have many of the attractions you mentioned France indeed has that the UK doesn't

I've not seen any evidence to suggest that tourism would decline significantly if the monarchy was no longer in place. Tourists come to see palaces, crowns, carriages etc, all of which would still exist even without the stuffed ermine robes that currently occupy them. The Palace of Versailles is orders of magnitude more popular as a tourist destination than Buckingham Palace and the French don't have a monarch or royal family. 

Probably because it hasn't been asked or projected. Well it sems many people disagree with you. You're no comparing like for like and one minute you aren't comparing France and now you are - so a reasonable discussion with you about the subject seems unachievable

I have no idea what you're talking about - "one minute you aren't comparing France and now you are"? 

bobmunro

seth plum said:

Yet that sketch would have been based on something that used to be in the culture, unless it was thought up as a completely fresh off the wall idea related to nothing experienced.

Chunes

bobmunro said:

seth plum said:

bobmunro said:

seth plum said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Surely the entire notion of elevating one family above and beyond all others in the land and to fawn over them swear allegiance to them and lavish them with untold luxury, wealth and property is beyond parody isn’t it ? I understand that the individuals here shoulder no responsibility for the accident of their birth but I’m incredulous that anybody doesn’t find the whole thing laughably funny.

This is 100% true.
The current situation has come about organically.
My concern is how to avoid some kind of dictatorship, for that this ‘democracy’ would need a highly detailed and foolproof plan for the transition that would need to come about in order to make the ‘Royals’ have the same status as the rest of us.
The plan years ago in France was a lot of heads being chopped off, and in Russia a basement in Ekaterinburg.

The Irish system seems to be very effective at avoiding that!

• The President of Ireland is elected to a seven-year term of office and no person may serve more than two terms. The current President is Michael D. Higgins.
• The President, who does not have an executive or policy role, exercises his/her formal powers and functions on the advice of the Government.
• The President has the power to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court for a judgment on its constitutionality. He/she may seek advice from the Council of State and refer the Bill to the Irish Supreme Court for a ruling on whether it complies with the Constitution.

Well I totally agree that the Irish system is a good one. For a start there is a written constitution.
As my brother who lives in Ballycasey once said to me, the class divide in the Irish republic is non existent because one person’s dad and another person’s dad would have been standing next to each other pissing into the same pot.
The UK, or most specifically England, is the only country where I have ever heard somebody say about another person that they should ‘know their place’!

I can't imagine that conversation takes place on more than a few very rare occasions by idiots, and it will not be isolated to England - I have never in my 67 years on this planet heard anyone say that in relation to class, apart from:

I've heard a number of people say that you've got to respect your station in life, which isn't far off. 

Chizz

Chunes said:

bobmunro said:

seth plum said:

bobmunro said:

seth plum said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Surely the entire notion of elevating one family above and beyond all others in the land and to fawn over them swear allegiance to them and lavish them with untold luxury, wealth and property is beyond parody isn’t it ? I understand that the individuals here shoulder no responsibility for the accident of their birth but I’m incredulous that anybody doesn’t find the whole thing laughably funny.

This is 100% true.
The current situation has come about organically.
My concern is how to avoid some kind of dictatorship, for that this ‘democracy’ would need a highly detailed and foolproof plan for the transition that would need to come about in order to make the ‘Royals’ have the same status as the rest of us.
The plan years ago in France was a lot of heads being chopped off, and in Russia a basement in Ekaterinburg.

The Irish system seems to be very effective at avoiding that!

• The President of Ireland is elected to a seven-year term of office and no person may serve more than two terms. The current President is Michael D. Higgins.
• The President, who does not have an executive or policy role, exercises his/her formal powers and functions on the advice of the Government.
• The President has the power to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court for a judgment on its constitutionality. He/she may seek advice from the Council of State and refer the Bill to the Irish Supreme Court for a ruling on whether it complies with the Constitution.

Well I totally agree that the Irish system is a good one. For a start there is a written constitution.
As my brother who lives in Ballycasey once said to me, the class divide in the Irish republic is non existent because one person’s dad and another person’s dad would have been standing next to each other pissing into the same pot.
The UK, or most specifically England, is the only country where I have ever heard somebody say about another person that they should ‘know their place’!

I can't imagine that conversation takes place on more than a few very rare occasions by idiots, and it will not be isolated to England - I have never in my 67 years on this planet heard anyone say that in relation to class, apart from:

I've heard a number of people say that you've got to respect your station in life, which isn't far off. 

Seth, the world's most populous democracy has an even more entrenched, pernicious and detrimental "class" system where its citizens are not only expected to know their place, but are - to a large extent - forbidden from marrying outside it.  And it's a republic.  

JamesSeed

golfaddick said:

I feel sorry for Charles having to read out all that waffle. 

Did you hear him read out Sunak’s last one? It was a master class in disdain (or boredom). 

JamesSeed

Jints said:

If we were starting from scratch I'd be in favour of a Republic. As we are not starting from scratch, creating a republic would cost a fortune, paralyse politics for years and cause divisiveness that would make Brexit like a walk in the park. It would be absolutely horrendous. 

It’ll be a gradual slimming down process, rather than an instant cull. 

seth plum

Chizz said:

Chunes said:

bobmunro said:

seth plum said:

bobmunro said:

seth plum said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Surely the entire notion of elevating one family above and beyond all others in the land and to fawn over them swear allegiance to them and lavish them with untold luxury, wealth and property is beyond parody isn’t it ? I understand that the individuals here shoulder no responsibility for the accident of their birth but I’m incredulous that anybody doesn’t find the whole thing laughably funny.

This is 100% true.
The current situation has come about organically.
My concern is how to avoid some kind of dictatorship, for that this ‘democracy’ would need a highly detailed and foolproof plan for the transition that would need to come about in order to make the ‘Royals’ have the same status as the rest of us.
The plan years ago in France was a lot of heads being chopped off, and in Russia a basement in Ekaterinburg.

The Irish system seems to be very effective at avoiding that!

• The President of Ireland is elected to a seven-year term of office and no person may serve more than two terms. The current President is Michael D. Higgins.
• The President, who does not have an executive or policy role, exercises his/her formal powers and functions on the advice of the Government.
• The President has the power to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court for a judgment on its constitutionality. He/she may seek advice from the Council of State and refer the Bill to the Irish Supreme Court for a ruling on whether it complies with the Constitution.

Well I totally agree that the Irish system is a good one. For a start there is a written constitution.
As my brother who lives in Ballycasey once said to me, the class divide in the Irish republic is non existent because one person’s dad and another person’s dad would have been standing next to each other pissing into the same pot.
The UK, or most specifically England, is the only country where I have ever heard somebody say about another person that they should ‘know their place’!

I can't imagine that conversation takes place on more than a few very rare occasions by idiots, and it will not be isolated to England - I have never in my 67 years on this planet heard anyone say that in relation to class, apart from:

I've heard a number of people say that you've got to respect your station in life, which isn't far off. 

Seth, the world's most populous democracy has an even more entrenched, pernicious and detrimental "class" system where its citizens are not only expected to know their place, but are - to a large extent - forbidden from marrying outside it.  And it's a republic.  

I think you're referring to India.

MuttleyCAFC

I get how ridiculous it is having a king in 2024 but I am not rushing to change anything due to my obeservations that anything we are likely to do to replace it will be worse.  It will happen, I'm sure, because the ridiculousness of it all will not go away, but doubt it will be in my lifetime. We are probably one bad monarch away from it happening or a couple more Prince Andrews but I think William will keep it all going a while yet.

ShootersHillGuru

MuttleyCAFC said:

I get how ridiculous it is having a king in 2024 but I am not rushing to change anything due to my obeservations that anything we are likely to do to replace it will be worse.  It will happen, I'm sure, because the ridiculousness of it all will not go away, but doubt it will be in my lifetime. We are probably one bad monarch away from it happening or a couple more Prince Andrews but I think William will keep it all going a while yet.

There is no need to replace it. Just do what other monarchies around Europe have done. Scale it back and scale it down. The King can still be head of state and be responsible for the checks and balances to government but do we really need all the other shenanigans like we saw yesterday. 

bobmunro

ShootersHillGuru said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

I get how ridiculous it is having a king in 2024 but I am not rushing to change anything due to my obeservations that anything we are likely to do to replace it will be worse.  It will happen, I'm sure, because the ridiculousness of it all will not go away, but doubt it will be in my lifetime. We are probably one bad monarch away from it happening or a couple more Prince Andrews but I think William will keep it all going a while yet.

There is no need to replace it. Just do what other monarchies around Europe have done. Scale it back and scale it down. The King can still be head of state and be responsible for the checks and balances to government but do we really need all the other shenanigans like we saw yesterday. 

I agree that the monarch can be Head of State for ceremonial duties, state visits and the like, but should not have any responsibilities for the checks and balances to government.

valleynick66

Chizz said:

Anyway.  Pomp, ceremony.  The brilliance of the UK State at its confident best?  Or the demonstration of constitutional unfairness?  What are people's views on the State Opening of Parliament, other ceremonial demonstrations by UK authorities, or even the way in which other countries show off their (second division) statuses?  

What are people's views on how well - or otherwise - we "do" ceremony here?  

(But no need for further, futile rabbit hole burrowing into the "we do/we don't want a republic" debate.  Please)

Yes we do it very well and we can take pride in the spectacle. 

It has to be said in their own way the military marching / displays from China and Russia are also impressive to see. No comment obviously on the politics of these nations. 

ShootersHillGuru

bobmunro said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

I get how ridiculous it is having a king in 2024 but I am not rushing to change anything due to my obeservations that anything we are likely to do to replace it will be worse.  It will happen, I'm sure, because the ridiculousness of it all will not go away, but doubt it will be in my lifetime. We are probably one bad monarch away from it happening or a couple more Prince Andrews but I think William will keep it all going a while yet.

There is no need to replace it. Just do what other monarchies around Europe have done. Scale it back and scale it down. The King can still be head of state and be responsible for the checks and balances to government but do we really need all the other shenanigans like we saw yesterday. 

I agree that the monarch can be Head of State for ceremonial duties, state visits and the like, but should not have any responsibilities for the checks and balances to government.

I agree but there would need to be constitutional change for that to occur. Keeping things as they are but with a scaled down Royal Family would be the more simple thing to achieve. 

SporadicAddick

.

ValleyGary

As someone who didn’t even know what this was until I saw the thread on CL, who gives a fuck. If you care I’m sure it’s fantastic, if you don’t then it’s had zero effect on my life. You’ve gotta go out your way to be bothered by it, bit like love island etc, that’s pretty sad.

Jints

bobmunro said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

I get how ridiculous it is having a king in 2024 but I am not rushing to change anything due to my obeservations that anything we are likely to do to replace it will be worse.  It will happen, I'm sure, because the ridiculousness of it all will not go away, but doubt it will be in my lifetime. We are probably one bad monarch away from it happening or a couple more Prince Andrews but I think William will keep it all going a while yet.

There is no need to replace it. Just do what other monarchies around Europe have done. Scale it back and scale it down. The King can still be head of state and be responsible for the checks and balances to government but do we really need all the other shenanigans like we saw yesterday. 

I agree that the monarch can be Head of State for ceremonial duties, state visits and the like, but should not have any responsibilities for the checks and balances to government.

Isn't that how it is now?