|
||||||||
When Australia removes the royal family could the uk follow suit? |
| View Poll Results: Do you support the royal family? | |||
| no,under 30 |
|
6 | 4.72% |
| no, 30+ |
|
50 | 39.37% |
| yes, under 30 |
|
15 | 11.81% |
| yes 30+ |
|
56 | 44.09% |
| Voters: 127. You can't vote on this poll right now - are you signed in? | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Lincs
Posts: 16,159
|
I like that the monarchy is politically impotent. Being a republic means having a president, so you still have a head of state but one that enforce their political will.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Lincs
Posts: 16,159
|
Quote:
So make it a non-political post. And as it would be largely ceremonial, there is little scope for the holder to be divisive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,776
|
Quote:
In other words, the Queen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,421
|
Quote:
In other words, the Queen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,421
|
Quote:
I like that the monarchy is politically impotent. Being a republic means having a president, so you still have a head of state but one that enforce their political will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,421
|
Quote:
I had held back on the obvious responce as I think some people are far more invested in "getting rid of the monarchy" than looking at the issues rationally.
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 6,389
|
It won't happen in our lifetime. Far too indoctrinated into the British psyche
|
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 695
|
There is a very strong chance that Australia will move to become a republic after the Queen passes on. There is a strong republican movement there, but the Queen is well liked and there is a perception, that King Charles will be a bit of a "wet rag" so when Charlie accents the throne would be the appropriate time to move to a republic.
Most Australians see themselves as an independent democracy, and having an unelected head of state, half a world away, does not fit with that perception. The republican movement in New Zealand is not as strong, but is likely to follow the developments in Australia. If Australia becomes a republic, New Zealand would soon follow, because the two countries, although independent, are closely linked both economically and culturally. As for Britain, unless the Royal family, move with the times, and modernise there is the likelyhood of more people will see them as being "out of touch" will the common people, and that adds strength to the republic movement. However there is a deficit of democracy in Britain, and an unelected head of state is part of that deficit. Most developed countries are full democracies, and sooner or later Britain will have to move to that model, but that may be in a hungpdred years or more. |
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 804
|
Quote:
There is a very strong chance that Australia will move to become a republic after the Queen passes on. There is a strong republican movement there, but the Queen is well liked and there is a perception, that King Charles will be a bit of a "wet rag" so when Charlie accents the throne would be the appropriate time to move to a republic.
Most Australians see themselves as an independent democracy, and having an unelected head of state, half a world away, does not fit with that perception. The republican movement in New Zealand is not as strong, but is likely to follow the developments in Australia. If Australia becomes a republic, New Zealand would soon follow, because the two countries, although independent, are closely linked both economically and culturally. As for Britain, unless the Royal family, move with the times, and modernise there is the likelyhood of more people will see them as being "out of touch" will the common people, and that adds strength to the republic movement. However there is a deficit of democracy in Britain, and an unelected head of state is part of that deficit. Most developed countries are full democracies, and sooner or later Britain will have to move to that model, but that may be in a hungpdred years or more. |
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,792
|
Quote:
I like that the monarchy is politically impotent. Being a republic means having a president, so you still have a head of state but one that enforce their political will.
Just have it to the father of the house - job done. |
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,460
|
I don't mind them that much, except for the toe-curling grovelling they are shown by morons.
I'm talking here about the saddos who camp out at Sandringham on Christmas eve in the hope they get to see the Queen and simper at her. Goodness knows what they did this year when the sniffles prevented her from turning up. They probably went home to top themselves. If the monarchy is to carry on I think all the deference and crawling needs to go. They need to align themselves with other royal families eg the Netherlands and be more bloody normal. Also streamline the whole operation and slim down how much is spent on them. |
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,724
|
Quote:
As for Britain, unless the Royal family, move with the times, and modernise there is the likelyhood of more people will see them as being "out of touch" will the common people, and that adds strength to the republic movement.
However there is a deficit of democracy in Britain, and an unelected head of state is part of that deficit. Most developed countries are full democracies, and sooner or later Britain will have to move to that model, but that may be in a hungpdred years or more. |
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,421
|
Quote:
Popularity of the Royal Family is at a high at the moment in the UK. I suspect that Charles is fated to repeat the reign of Edward VII (who followed Victoria) - his reign will be a lot shorter
|
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,460
|
Quote:
Popularity of the Royal Family is at a high at the moment in the UK. I suspect that Charles is fated to repeat the reign of Edward VII (who followed Victoria) - his reign will be a lot shorter
I wonder how low-key Charles' succession will be? The Diamaniacs will be out to get HM Queen Camilla. |
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,000
|
I don't really care if the Royals remain, but I utterly reject any notion of their 'superiority' to the rest of us, and absolutely would not show deference to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,214
|
I'd love it if we did get rid of them. Only those loons who camp outside hospitals when children pop out of certain vaginas left to massage the egos of a family who think that god picked them to rule over us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,421
|
Quote:
I don't really care if the Royals remain, but I utterly reject any notion of their 'superiority' to the rest of us, and absolutely would not show deference to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,000
|
Quote:
A very sensible attitude, though I would go a bit further and question the point of keeping them at all if they're not superior and don't qualify for deference!
As far as I am concerned they're just another 'celebrity' family, that I tend to avoid news stories on. I've not seen a Queen's speech in years, and didn't recognise the Middletons until quite recently (and I still have to look up who one of them married). |
|
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort William
Posts: 22,266
|
Quote:
Agreed, but a lot of folk seem to like them so I adopt a general 'meh' attitude to them.
As far as I am concerned they're just another 'celebrity' family, that I tend to avoid news stories on. I've not seen a Queen's speech in years, and didn't recognise the Middletons until quite recently (and I still have to look up who one of them married). |
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,036
|
You often find that those with an irrational hatred of the Royal Family have underlying personality disorders which manifest themselves in many similar ways i.e. hatred of successful and popular people, they are conspiracy theorists and exhibit paranoid behaviour about the 'state' and banks etc. Far from looking into themselves for solutions to their difficulties they find it easier to blame others for their failings and problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#71 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 43,666
|
Quote:
err... they do have a veto in policy areas - while it has not been done for 200 years the monarch still has to sign acts of parliament and she can refuse. The last time is was considered was over the independence of Ireland - that led to the creation of Eire.
The monarch can also say if a subject cannot be debated in the house of commons, which is what happened when Tony Blair wanted to debate the right of the government and not the monarch to declare war (only the monarch can actually declare war). https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/.../monarchy.iraq In practice the government exercises these powers on the crown's behalf. And in practice it will only do so if parliament does not object. Nevertheless almost none of this is written down. In principle, if not in practice, a prime minister could take the nation to war in defiance of a parliamentary vote; he wields a theoretical power that a believer in the divine right of kings would have recognised. and Blair saw no reason to end that procedure Three months before the war, Blair debated this issue with the Commons liaison committee. He agreed with the MPs that it would be right for parliament, and good for government, for there to be a vote. "There is a right to vote," he even told the committee, before entering a caveat. "The question is, do you take that one step further and get rid of the royal prerogative. I do not see any reason to change it, but I do really think that in the end it is more theoretical than real, this issue." In practice, Blair said, "I cannot think of any circumstances in which a government can go to war without the support of parliament |
|
|
|
|
#72 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort William
Posts: 22,266
|
Quote:
You often find that those with an irrational hatred of the Royal Family have underlying personality disorders which manifest themselves in many similar ways i.e. hatred of successful and popular people, they are conspiracy theorists and exhibit paranoid behaviour about the 'state' and banks etc. Far from looking into themselves for solutions to their difficulties they find it easier to blame others for their failings and problems.
The royal family are perfectly normal people who have had very distorted upbringings isolated from many aspects of real life. People who think they are superior in any way or deserve respect because of their ancestry must have such a poor self image that they find it necessary to kowtow to them. |
|
|
|
|
|
#73 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,204
|
I think we'll have the monarchy as long as the press/media tell us to have them. If they decided to report most things about them negatively then they would be gone pretty quickly I would imagine. As it is though, with most of the press/media drooling over them they'll be here for the foreseeable.
As for the Aussies, I'm not sure they'd even vote to get rid. Hasn't their popularity increased there of late, especially after the Kate and Wills wedding. |
|
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,421
|
Quote:
You often find that those with an irrational hatred of the Royal Family have underlying personality disorders which manifest themselves in many similar ways i.e. hatred of successful and popular people, they are conspiracy theorists and exhibit paranoid behaviour about the 'state' and banks etc. Far from looking into themselves for solutions to their difficulties they find it easier to blame others for their failings and problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#75 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nailsworth, Gloucestershire
Posts: 10,402
|
Quote:
As for Britain, unless the Royal family, move with the times, and modernise there is the likelyhood of more people will see them as being "out of touch" will the common people, and that adds strength to the republic movement.
However there is a deficit of democracy in Britain, and an unelected head of state is part of that deficit. Most developed countries are full democracies, and sooner or later Britain will have to move to that model, but that may be in a hungpdred years or more. Quote:
I think we'll have the monarchy as long as the press/media tell us to have them. If they decided to report most things about them negatively then they would be gone pretty quickly I would imagine. As it is though, with most of the press/media drooling over them they'll be here for the foreseeable.
As for the Aussies, I'm not sure they'd even vote to get rid. Hasn't their popularity increased there of late, especially after the Kate and Wills wedding. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:23.




