Future of the Monarchy....

[Katie]

Hello all,

As part of my constitutional law course, I am writing a dissertation on the Monarchy. The angle is on whether modernisation of the Monarchy (and if so, what?) is needed for its survival. I don't intend to look at abolishing the Monarchy in favour of a Republic, but nevertheless feel free to discuss this.

Areas I intend to look at are:
- Queen's role as Supreme Governor of the Church
- Commonwealth
- Finance, property and taxation
- Ceremonial role
- Royal Prerogative powers
- compulsory retirement age?
- right to privacy in terms of media intrusion? (particularly relevant with Prince Harry fiasco)


It would be very much appreciated if forumites would post their thoughts.

All opinions welcome! Far easier than interviewing people! :clap:

Kate :flower:

[philsmove]

- Compulsory retirement age?

At first sight this seems a good ideal
But if it meant,even the remotest possibly of, Camilla Parker Whatnot becoming Queen NO WAY

[Lory]

I have really mixed feelings about our monarchy. :rolleyes:

On one hand I feel proud we've got something that's admired by other countries such as the USA and all the history, pageantry and tradition that goes with it and the fact it's really good for our countries tourism, etc.


BUT on the other hand, I can't help feeling aggrieved that in this day and age, we have a family that is just born to all these privileges, who we didn't elect, who are supposed to represent us and be people we 'should' look up to.
Choosing people for responsible jobs like head of state by accident of birth is undemocratic in a supposedly modern "classless society" where everyone is equal.


On the score of setting an excample, I think they've let us down badly.

I have no doubt that some things do benefit from having a royal visit though.

I've seen with my own eyes a street completely renovated, cleaned of all graffiti and rubbish, given a lick of paint and the sudden transformation of flower beds that hadn't seen anything other than weeds and dogs foul for years.
Yes, that's nice but I can't help getting annoyed that it's all been done for what amounts to a 30minute stroll down street for the Queen and not for all those people who've lived there day after day. :angry:

I don't think she be shielded from reality.

Plus, I don't actually 'like' any of them and have a quite strong 'dislike' for Prince Charles, Camilla and Prince Philip.

If we do keep them, I hope we skip a generation and make Prince William our next Monarch. I want him to be 'real', down to earth, approachable and not just an emotionless 'face' that nobody really knows. :cheers:

[bobgadjet]

If we do keep them, I hope we skip a generation and make Prince William our next Monarch. I want him to be 'real', down to earth, approachable and not just an emotionless 'face' that nobody really knows. :cheers:

Trouble is, whoever takes over, unless anything is changed, they have no say in what they do.

Like any "leader" (don't ask me how they do that) they have a strict timetable of events to cover in their life, and it's more or less controlled for them.

Whoever is "up there" does as they are told, goes where they are taken etc, and will always be shielded from "the real world".

If we want a monarchy, we have to live with it.

I was surprised by the poll. Thought I might have been in a minority. Wow.

If we keep it, and it changes too drastically, it wiill loose the charm that appeals to the foreigners.

Mixed feelings also in that respect, but I DO think they should be shown the REAL world IN OUR COUNTRY, and not just the starving people abroad.

Take them down to Soho and nchat with some of those living on the street, but without warning. Let them see the garbage being collected at 3am, but sitting on the pavement for hours aqttracting the usual.

Let them wake people sleeping in doorways and ask them.... WHY?

I know it will never happen like that, but we live in hope (or Watford:whistle: )

And if it were modernised.....HOW?

And why were you playing on the net at 6.35? Cant you sleep? or did you get an unexpected phonecall from Her Majesty:rofl:

[MartinHarper]

They should be shown the REAL world IN OUR COUNTRY. [...] Let them wake people sleeping in doorways and ask them.... WHY? I know it will never happen like that.

Queen remembers the homeless and meets homeless "Mouse" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/586552.stm)

They already do this stuff. Shame it doesn't get more publicity.

[DavidY]

I've always liked the Douglas Adams phrase in Hitchhiker's Guide where he says that people who actually want to rule people are those least suited to do it, and anyone who gets themselves made leader "should on no account be allowed to do the job". (Something like that anyway - not sure of the exact quote :blush:)

By this logic, choosing a leader by birth isn't a bad way to do it....

More seriously, democracy isn't necessarily a good system for long-term issues such as the environment.

If you had a policy where the world will be a much better place in 20 years' time, but it will be slightly worse (eg. everyone has to pay more tax) for the next 10 years, then that policy isn't going to happen in a democracy with an election every 5.

I don't agree with everything the Royal Family do, but I can see a place for the likes of Prince Charles stating his opinions on environmental issues without having to worry about getting elected in a few years' time.

[TheTramp]

Have today started my Constitutional Law course.

2 hour lecture, at 9am on a Monday morning. Had lost the will to live by about 9:35

[Graham]

Queen's role as Supreme Governor of the Church - I don't think the monarch should continue in this role, especially since it effectively means that the prime minister appoints bishops (even if the PM were of a different religious persuasion). I think the Church of England should be reformed to be self-governing and the special powers of the monarch abolished.
Commonwealth - if Commonwealth countries wish to retain our monarch as their head of state I think that's up to them. While the monarch is a head of state to a significant number of Commonwealth countries I see a special symbolic role for the monarch as head of the Commonwealth. If the Commonwealth decides this symbolic role is no longer necessary then no doubt they will dispense with it. I see this as a matter for the Commonwealth as an organisation, rather than for the UK.
Finance, property and taxation - Unfortunately previous governments have not served us well in this respect, and we are left with a somewhat confused legacy. I think that the cleanest way of resolving this might actually be to restore the crown estates to the monarchy, but to end all special financial treatment, including the civil list and tax exemptions. However, this would risk the prospect of a future monarch selling off what we have come to regard as public property, such as Buckingham Palace. An alternative would be to enlarge the crown estates to essentially remove all private wealth from the Monarch. Where this starts to get messy is with the wider family. In practice we have made it next to impossible for anyone related to the monarch to have a normal life and therefore be capable of supporting themselves, and currently the Queen subsidises a number of her relations from her personal income. It should be noted that a number of these relations have traditionally also performed ceremonial duties and charitable works, although generally less intensively than the Queen. If there were to be restrictions on the monarch's private wealth, I think this would have to be tied to privacy reforms.
Ceremonial role - I don't really see any need to change the ceremonial role, except in regard to the Church of England, and in relation to Parliament - I think the monarch's role in the legislative process should be abolished, which would perhaps change the ceremonial role in parliament
Royal Prerogative powers - Most of these are in practice exercised by the Prime Minister. All should be reviewed, and some should be turned into official powers of the PM, and some should probably be returned to parliament. A few should possibly be abolished. I believe that the power to dissolve parliament is the only one which should be continued, but that a new provision should be introduced that if it is exercised the incoming parliament should have the right to call a referendum to remove a monarch who did so.
compulsory retirement age? I'm not so sure about this one - lots of heads of state have been effective to quite an old age - but I think that it should be possible to voluntarily retire - at present I do not believe the Queen considers herself to have this right.
right to privacy in terms of media intrusion? (particularly relevant with Prince Harry fiasco) - I believe that everyone is entitled to privacy, but that the public is entitled to know things which have a bearing on people's public life. For example, if the Prince of Wales goes around making speeches on architecture, then his plans for a new house are fair game. Likewise, if a politician goes round preaching about moral standards, then his own moral standards are open to scrutiny. However, I believe that details of someone's private life should only be published against their will if they are clearly inconsistent with their public image, or if they are nefarious in nature (eg MPs fiddling their expenses). If we want to review the finances of the royal family, and seriously expect minor royals to "go out and get a job", then they will need to be entitled to the same degree of privacy as any average citizen.

[Dreadful Scathe]

I believe that the power to dissolve parliament is the only one which should be continued, but that a new provision should be introduced that if it is exercised the incoming parliament should have the right to call a referendum to remove a monarch who did so.


Interesting idea. I like it :). I like DavidYs post as well, it would be intereting if our government was based on random people like a jury is - there is something immediately suspicious about people who want power. :) Of course, its not that simple - there have been plenty of politicians who feel they have a duty to serve and represent the people. Good luck to them i say, they have their work cut out in fighting with the greedy bar stewards in parliament who have their own agenda :). Our political balance is possibly steering too much toward the American model now. i.e. One muppet at the top steered by lobbyists. Its only a few years since the House of Lords lost a lot of its powers - big mistake. MORE POWER TO THE UNELECTED LORDS, SOME OF THEM USED TO JUST TURN UP DRUNK AND SLEEP! Nothing will stop an extremist state as well as political randomness. ;)



"politician" [snip] "moral standards"

In the same sentance ? we need examples :)

[bobgadjet]

Queen remembers the homeless and meets homeless "Mouse" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/586552.stm)

They already do this stuff. Shame it doesn't get more publicity.
you cannot convince me (or Lory) that where she goes, a cleanup crew goes before her.
She will not be shown the REAL world, cos she would have a heart attack, me thinks.

[Jon L]

I am not and never have been a republican and I think Her Majesty is a caring person deep down, and is good for the country. Does anyone want President Tony ? I like the idea of the Prime Minister having being accountable to someone. Also there are still our commenwealth friends Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, who for the moment also have the Queen as head of state, as we have so much in common with these places.

As has been said by many the problem has been they have got out of touch with people like us living normal lives.

Having looked at I am inclined towards agreeing that maybe the anglican church should be disassociated from the head of state, certainly when HRH Chas takes over but part of me still thinks that the church if it wakes up it's ideas has an important role on ethical matters in politics.

The other thing I would like to see happen is minor royals being refined losing tax payers funds from us, all this Lord, this and Lady that - nah! I am not a fan of the class system in this country

[DavidY]

It would be interesting if our government was based on random people like a jury is - there is something immediately suspicious about people who want power~SNIP~Its only a few years since the House of Lords lost a lot of its powers - big mistake. :yeah: My theory on what should happen with the House of Lords is the "Jury Service" model. If you get randomly chosen you have to serve in the House of Lords for 3 years. Maybe using teleconferencing or some such technology for folk who really can't turn up in person.

There might be an argument for keeping the Law Lords though ( the theory is that it helps to have new legislation shaped by folk who have to interpret the existing laws).

I believe that bishops currently have a right to sit in the Lords. To reform this you'd probably want to ensure that other religions were represented - but you'd then have the problem that folk would turn up wanting a seat claiming to be Head of the Jedi, Chief Smurf , etc. :wink:

[ChrisA]

My theory on what should happen with the House of Lords is the "Jury Service" model. If you get randomly chosen you have to serve in the House of Lords for 3 years.
God help us all if that ever happened.

On each of the three jury trials I've been juror on, out of the twelve good (wo)men and true:

- Two were capable of understanding evidence and discussing it fairly
- Two were insanely prejudiced for one reason or another ("you could tell he was guilty as soon as you looked at him" was one comment I heard - I kid you not :tears: )
- Four were extremely uncritical and could be swayed in any direction by any apparently plausible statement
- Four didn't give a **** either way.

I came away after my time doing, as I saw it, my civic duty, desperately depressed about the whole jury system, and I just hope to hell I never get arrested for something for which I might have to rely on a jury to acquit me.

Heaven only knows what sort of laws we'd end up with if people were just chosen at random to scrutinise our legislative process.

Chris

[MartinHarper]

The other thing I would like to see happen is minor royals being refined losing tax payers funds from us.

That happened just over ten years ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2002/the_royal_accounts/default.stm


The Queen finances the activities of other members of the Royal Family out of her own purse under arrangements made in 1993.

[Graham]

God help us all if that ever happened.

On each of the three jury trials I've been juror on, out of the twelve good (wo)men and true:

- Two were capable of understanding evidence and discussing it fairly
- Two were insanely prejudiced for one reason or another ("you could tell he was guilty as soon as you looked at him" was one comment I heard - I kid you not :tears: )
- Four were extremely uncritical and could be swayed in any direction by any apparently plausible statement
- Four didn't give a **** either way.

I came away after my time doing, as I saw it, my civic duty, desperately depressed about the whole jury system, and I just hope to hell I never get arrested for something for which I might have to rely on a jury to acquit me.

Heaven only knows what sort of laws we'd end up with if people were just chosen at random to scrutinise our legislative process.

Chris
This is an excellent point. Perhaps you should be able to volunteer and sit an aptitude test, and then representatives are chosen by lot after that. A bit like "Who wants to be a millionaire" now I think about it :wink:

[Katie]

Choosing people for responsible jobs like head of state by accident of birth is undemocratic in a supposedly modern "classless society" where everyone is equal.


I agree that the hereditary principle is undemocratic in a modern society, however, having an elected government counter-balances this. The government possesses the 'real' power (or perhaps Tony Blair :rolleyes: ) and the monarch is there to safeguard against a Prime Minister acting unconstitutionally.

Being Head of State is a responsible job, but heirs to the throne are groomed into the role (although Queen Elizabeth II wasn't, she has set a good example to successive heirs) whereas an elected head of state will be thinking of their short term political careers as opposed to a life-long role. The reason I am thinking along the lines of a voluntary/compulsory retirement would be to ensure a smooth succession.

I have a few more thoughts but will post them at a later date....

Thank you to everyone who has posted their thoughts. :flower:

Kate

[Bangers & Mash]

Back to the thread.

I am a strong royalist and believe firmly in the monarchy.

We are slowly but surely losing so much of our rich heritage, I think it would be a shame to lose the flagship - especially when the royals generate so much tourism.

I think the day we lose the monarchy, is the day that the UK becomes simply another state of the USA. :tears:

Personally, I would love to see the Queen dissolve parliament. But then again, I seem to remember saying that I would be firmly behind Black Watch leading a military coup.
:what: