The Queen is dead.

[ProfessorDavey]

..and then try and name a bad constitutional monarch...the only ''Bad'' british monarch eliminated himself from office

Presume you mean Edward VIII - so what made him 'bad'? Was it his desire to marry a divorcee (which was what made his abdicate), or his views on a range of matters.

What if he'd decided not to marry and didn't abdicate - would he have suddenly become a 'good' King, on the throne until the 70s.

And let's not forget that if it were today he wouldn't have had to abdicate as we've decided that it is fine to have a monarch married to a divorcee - we've had one for the last 5 days.

And on other 'bad' monarchs - well it depends on how you set your standards, but certainly the notion of duty, accessibility, engagement with the public etc we've seen with the Queen is pretty recent and seems largely started with her father. Earlier monarchs, e.g. George V, Edward VII simply didn't operate like that at all. By modern standards they'd all be bad monarchs.

And Victoria largely vanished from public life for decades of her reign. She simply wasn't really doing the job at all.

And were earlier monarchs (e.g. Edvard VII) subject to the levels of media scrutiny we have today I think one or two would have given Andy a run for his money.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Presume you mean Edward VIII - so what made him 'bad'?.

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/world-history/former-king-wanted-england-bombed-and-anglo-german-alliance-archives-reveal

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But the royals are the epitome of the famous for being famous.

No, they are famous for being royal

[ProfessorDavey]

No, they are famous for being royal

But they are only royal by accident of birth, not due to anything that warrants fame - hence famous for being famous. And there are plenty of royals, particularly in other countries, who aren't really famous at all as the media/press simply leave them alone. So the notion that the profile and fame of our royals is somehow detached from the media and press is ludicrous. Have you ever looked at lots of our celebrity press - they endlessly pump our sycophantic stories about the royal (or unfairly biased ones is it is a royal deemed to now be a pantomime villain). They create the celebrity and then feed off the celebrity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But they are only royal by accident of birth, not due to anything that warrants fame - hence famous for being famous. And there are plenty of royals, particularly in other countries, who aren't really famous at all as the media/press simply leave them alone. So the notion that the profile and fame of our royals is somehow detached from the media and press is ludicrous. Have you ever looked at lots of our celebrity press - they endlessly pump our sycophantic sorties about the royal (or unfairly biased ones is it t a royal deemed to now be a pantomime villain). They create the celebrity and then feed off the celebrity.

The Queen wasn't a good monarch because she was hyped up to be so.
As for a sycophantic press, The Guardian for instance shows a bit of bias towards British republicanism and inflates it's actual affective force and the Right wing press seems to have for a long time put the monarchy and royal family on some kind of probation and, with it's concentration on William and Kate at the expense of the King and Camilla shows a disregard for the monarchy and history. The ''skip a generation to appoint, by popular acclaim, the next monarch'' is just backdoor republican mischief making.

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/world-history/former-king-wanted-england-bombed-and-anglo-german-alliance-archives-reveal

Yes I'm well aware of his view.

But he didn't have to abdicate - that was his choice, and not one he'd be forced to make today. So in a manner of speaking, we dodged a bullet because he had to abdicate not because of his views but because of his choice of partner. Had that not happened, he'd have been King until 1972.

And your argument about the apprenticeship really doesn't hold water does it - Edward VIII (who you seem to consider to be a bad king who could easily have been a bad king for 35 years rather than 300 days) had over 40 years of apprenticeship (as you call it). His brother, who never expected to become king, had no real apprenticeship before being thrust into a role he didn't expect and appears not to have wanted.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes I'm well aware of his view.

But he didn't have to abdicate - that was his choice, and not one he'd be forced to make today. So in a manner of speaking, we dodged a bullet because he had to abdicate not because of his views but because of his choice of partner. Had that not happened, he'd have been King until 1972.

And your argument about the apprenticeship really doesn't hold water does it - Edward VIII (who you seem to consider to be a bad king who could easily have been a bad king for 35 years rather than 300 days) had over 40 years of apprenticeship (as you call it). His brother, who never expected to become king, had no real apprenticeship before being thrust into a role he didn't expect and appears not to have wanted.

The system held Edward the eighth in Check at the point at which it could. Edward was asked to demonstrate sacrifice and restraint for the sake of the country but in the end our swerve away from being an ally of the reich was luck. Edward demonstrated that in Dangerous times (The age of Dictatorship) he was not the ideal monarch. There is also the possibility that he could have opposed his friend Hitler in the way that George V opposed his cousin Wilhelm and repudiated another cousin Nicholas.

Would Edward VIII have been an ally of Hitler and have survived wartime defeat? And would the British monarchy have survived that defeat? I'm not sure.

So much for what might have been, what was, was that the kings and Queens of the 20th century were by and large Good Monarchs and Edward the eighth was a good apprentice lured to the dark side in a few respects.

[ProfessorDavey]

The system held Edward the eighth in Check at the point at which it could. Edward was asked to demonstrate sacrifice and restraint for the sake of the country but in the end our swerve away from being an ally of the reich was luck. Edward demonstrated that in Dangerous times (The age of Dictatorship) he was not the ideal monarch. There is also the possibility that he could have opposed his friend Hitler in the way that George V opposed his cousin Wilhelm and repudiated another cousin Nicholas.

But the point is that it was his choice - if Edward VIII had chosen not to abdicate I don't think constitutionally we'd have been able to do anything about it. He'd have remained king until he died.

And historians think that he wasn't the only sympathiser amongst his siblings.

So much for what might have been, what was, was that the kings and Queens of the 20th century were by and large Good Monarchs and Edward the eighth was a good apprentice lured to the dark side in a few respects.

Were they? On what basis? Certainly by current standards Edward VII was a dud - considered lazy and unsuited by his mother and was a serial adultery, gambler etc. More akin to Andrew.

George V seems to have been more interested in enjoying his traditional pursuits, rather than engaging in his public duties as monarch, and was considered boring and uninspiring.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Were they? On what basis?

On the basis of Brand survival and gauged by how the populace responded at the conclusion of each reign. That response has been little support for a republic as opposed to an evolvable constitutional monarchy.

Thinking of which isn't it up to both sides of a debate to make an outline of their case. Please feel free to give the case for a republic.

[ProfessorDavey]

On the basis of Brand survival and gauged by how the populace responded at the conclusion of each reign. That response has been little support for a republic as opposed to an evolvable constitutional monarchy.

That's the equivalent of thinking that because we continue to elect (or have appointed) a new PM periodically, that the public automatically approve of the predecessor - it is non-sense.

Given that over generations monarchy has been rammed down our throats as 'a good thing' by the establishment (that err includes the monarchy) it is hardly surprising that the narrative is that the King/Queen was universally loved, respected etc and a 'good monarch'. I don't think you can make that judgement whatsoever because the public isn't provided with any alternative, nor is there any meaningful way to assess such popularity.

So I have no idea (and nor do you) what the rank and file really thought of, for example, Edward VII in 1910 when he died, nor whether they really had the information to make a judgement, which I doubt.

Out of interest - early evening yesterday my wife and I popped past Buckingham Palace on the way back from the cricket. Loads of people there and loads of flowers so clearly people wanted to be there/see it etc. But what was noticeable was that a high proportion appeared to be tourists (huge numbers of languages), but also how many people were posing for selfies which struck both of us as deeply inappropriate. This felt rather more like an event people needed to see, rather than a solemn paying of respects.

But of course most people won't go and will probably just be getting on with their lives as best they can until things return to a level of normality. There certainly seems little appetite for the kind of enforced mourning, with events being cancelled - there has certainly been a big backlash against the football for cancelling fixtures compared to other sports who have carried on.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's the equivalent of thinking that because we continue to elect (or have appointed) a new PM periodically, that the public automatically approve of the predecessor - it is non-sense.

No i've already outlined in numbered points what the advantages of a British constitutional monarchy are over it's dismantlement and replacement. What we have not heard from the republican side is why and how the benefits of the British monarchy can and should be substituted with a republic.

Why for instance is democracy more fitting for ceremonial and non executive functions of state?

How does the election of a president improve our lot?

How is historical continuity and our sense of nationhood preserved in and by a short term President with whom we cannot possibly develop any kind of respectful trust and sense of security with in a five year period?

Until you put a case we don't know what a British presidency is for. There is no reason as in a newly independent state for a complete break from history. That which is elected is political.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But of course most people won't go and will probably just be getting on with their lives as best they can until things return to a level of normality. There certainly seems little appetite for the kind of enforced mourning, with events being cancelled - there has certainly been a big backlash against the football for cancelling fixtures compared to other sports who have carried on.

Hmmm I can smell the scent of revolution already, I can see the maelstrom of the foment of discontent and the tidal wave of republicanism sweeping through our nation.

Davey, listen!

Do you hear the punters sing singing the songs of angry men. It is the sound those who will not be slaves again.

[Nearly Sane]

.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hmmm I can smell the scent of revolution already, I can see the maelstrom of the foment of discontent and the tidal wave of republicanism sweeping through our nation.

Unlikely as they'll be arrested - as is already happening in a number of instances where people have been peacefully and lawfully protesting against the proclamation of a new monarch which they do not agree with, which is completely legitimate expression of free speech.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/12/republican-britain-why-are-people-getting-arrested

More seriously - no there won't be a sudden republican wave, but there is already a trickle that could easily run a little faster bit by bit over the next few years. Notably support for the monarchy has dropped considerably over the past 10 years, from 73% in 2012 to 62% earlier this year. Now that is still a solid majority but not the kind of overwhelming majority support some would like to have you believe. But that 62% is with the Queen as monarch and we know her popularity way outstrips overall popularity for the monarchy and she is, but some margin, the most popular royal. Problem for Charles is his popularity lags behind that of the monarchy overall, and he is 4th-7th most popular royal (depending on your polling) and consistently more people wanted the throne to pass straight to William than to Charles. So all these things point to a bit more of a shift against the monarchy with Charles in place.

I don't think this will happen overnight, but in the next few years I think there will be people whose attitude is 'well he's not like the Queen is he' - others frustrated that their preferred monarch is kicking his heals as Prince of Wales and other still no longer seeing the point at all now that the Queen (ever present in their lives as monarch) is gone so the bubble of stability/continuity is burst.

[Gordon]

You seem to be thrashing about, Vlad.

No i've already outlined in numbered points what the advantages of a British constitutional monarchy are over it's dismantlement and replacement. What we have not heard from the republican side is why and how the benefits of the British monarchy can and should be substituted with a republic.

That there are "benefits of a British monarchy" seems to be begging the question: for me, the key point of republicanism is to simply dispense with the archaic nonsense of the hereditary principle of monarchy, with all it's special privileges by dint of the presumed superiority of those born of certain parents. 

Why for instance is democracy more fitting for ceremonial and non executive functions of state?

Personally I'm not certain that a ceremonial head of state is required: but if so, and we need someone to meet and greet, unveil plaques, cut ribbons and sign documents (that they cannot refuse to sign anyway) and wave when required - then if we elect someone and they turn out to be useless at these onerous tasks there will be an opportunity to either replace them of keep them in the role.
 

How does the election of a president improve our lot?

I'm not sure it does: but then I don't care for ceremony just for the sake of it.

How is historical continuity and our sense of nationhood preserved in and by a short term President with whom we cannot possibly develop any kind of respectful trust and sense of security with in a five year period?

Again; maybe we don't need such a person but provided they can shake hands, cut ribbons, sign documents (purely as window dressing), unveil plaques and, of course, wave when required without frightening children and small furry animals, then whether you chose to respect or trust them, or not, is of little importance since the role is just cosmetic window-dressing. 

Until you put a case we don't know what a British presidency is for. There is no reason as in a newly independent state for a complete break from history, that which is elected is political.

Well I'm not sure that we need a "British presidency" at all, or a Scottish one in due course: for me disposing of the monarchy and all the frippery and nonsense that surrounds it, along with the House of Lords and the notion of an established church, would be enough.

Personally, since I don't see that a ceremonial President is required, then I'm not advancing the case of one.

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem to be thrashing about, Vlad.

That there are "benefits of a British monarchy" seems to be begging the question: for me, the key point of republicanism is to simply dispense with the archaic nonsense of the hereditary principle of monarchy, with all it's special privileges by dint of the presumed superiority of those born of certain parents. 

Personally I'm not certain that a ceremonial head of state is required: but if so, and we need someone to meet and greet, unveil plaques, cut ribbons and sign documents (that they cannot refuse to sign anyway) and wave when required - then if we elect someone and they turn out to be useless at these onerous tasks there will be an opportunity to either replace them of keep them in the role.
 
I'm not sure it does: but then I don't care for ceremony just for the sake of it.

Again; maybe we don't need such a person but provided they can shake hands, cut ribbons, sign documents (purely as window dressing), unveil plaques and, of course, wave when required without frightening children and small furry animals, then whether you chose to respect or trust them, or not, is of little importance since the role is just cosmetic window-dressing. 

Well I'm not sure that we need a "British presidency" at all, or a Scottish one in due course: for me disposing of the monarchy and all the frippery and nonsense that surrounds it, along with the House of Lords and the notion of an established church, would be enough.

Personally, since I don't see that a ceremonial President is required, then I'm not advancing the case of one.

I think the point is who is head of state and who is effective custodian of the constitution. I get that you don't need a president, but realistically if you don't have one then the PM (or first minister) becomes head of state and de facto executive president in all but name.

The question is whether this is desirable and whether it is preferable to have someone else who is head of state and has a role in constitutional matters, particularly in a situation where you don't have a written constitution. That seems to be the approach of Ireland, Germany, Italy etc. Others, e.g. France, USA have determined that the executive lead and the head of state are one and the same.

[Gordon]

Article on how the monarchy is viewed her in Scotland.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/12/scottish-crowds-turn-out-for-the-queen-but-support-for-the-monarchy-less-clear

[Gordon]

The question is whether this is desirable and whether it is preferable to have someone else who is head of state and has a role in constitutional matters, particularly in a situation where you don't have a written constitution. That seems to be the approach of Ireland, Germany, Italy etc. Others, e.g. France, USA have determined that the executive lead and the head of state are one and the same.

I'd say that if there is to be a Head of State role, and if that role involves active participation in the processes and decisions of political governance: in essence, it is more than just ceremonial, then the occupant should be the result of an electoral process.

What that electoral process should be will require proposals for the electorate to consider: should it be part of the GE arrangements, so that a new Head of State is elected/re-elected wherenever there is a GE, or should it be a separate election and done on a PR basis, and what are the requirements that candidates must meet.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm pretty much with Gordon. I think we need to look at how we create checks and balances in the constitution. The constitutional monarchy we have doesn't work for that, and I don't think a ceremonial HoS would either. I'd get rid.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You seem to be thrashing about, Vlad.

That there are "benefits of a British monarchy" seems to be begging the question: for me, the key point of republicanism is to simply dispense with the archaic nonsense of the hereditary principle of monarchy, with all it's special privileges by dint of the presumed superiority of those born of certain parents. 

Personally I'm not certain that a ceremonial head of state is required: but if so, and we need someone to meet and greet, unveil plaques, cut ribbons and sign documents (that they cannot refuse to sign anyway) and wave when required - then if we elect someone and they turn out to be useless at these onerous tasks there will be an opportunity to either replace them of keep them in the role.
 
I'm not sure it does: but then I don't care for ceremony just for the sake of it.

Again; maybe we don't need such a person but provided they can shake hands, cut ribbons, sign documents (purely as window dressing), unveil plaques and, of course, wave when required without frightening children and small furry animals, then whether you chose to respect or trust them, or not, is of little importance since the role is just cosmetic window-dressing. 

Well I'm not sure that we need a "British presidency" at all, or a Scottish one in due course: for me disposing of the monarchy and all the frippery and nonsense that surrounds it, along with the House of Lords and the notion of an established church, would be enough.

Personally, since I don't see that a ceremonial President is required, then I'm not advancing the case of one.

I'm thinking of the bad presidents Gordon. This includes Trump, several 'El Presidentes', Robert Mugabe and Vladimir Putin.

''It's democratic innit and that's all that needs to be said'' begs the question Gordon as long as you and your wee wizards refuse to outline any benefits a British Republic would bring in terms of connecting with our history and national soft power, economic and cultural. The Queens body transported through Scotland evokes a real sense of Scottish Nationhood which a mere nationalist fumbler can only dream of.

So given that Gordon, ''Sell me the republic''. Same goes for Sane, and Davey.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm thinking of the bad presidents Gordon. This includes Trump, several 'El Presidentes', Robert Mugabe and Vladimir Putin.

''It's democratic innit and that's all that needs to be said'' begs the question Gordon as long as you and your wee wizards refuse to outline any benefits a British Republic would bring in terms of connecting with our history and national soft power, economic and cultural. The Queens body transported through Scotland evokes a real sense of Scottish Nationhood which a mere nationalist fumbler can only dream of.

So given that Gordon, ''Sell me the republic''. Same goes for Sane, and Davey.

I put why I'm a republican earlier. You ignored it.

You also appear to have replied to Gordon here by completely ignoring what he posted.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I put why I'm a republican earlier. You ignored it.

You also appear to have replied to Gordon here by completely ignoring what he posted.

Sorry but ''Get rid'' seems a bit vague as a motivation since we need to know why and how.

Let me help you. You aren't selling it to me. How does a republic elevate the human spirit ...which is all the constitutional monarchy is all about?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Article on how the monarchy is viewed her in Scotland.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/12/scottish-crowds-turn-out-for-the-queen-but-support-for-the-monarchy-less-clear

I'm sorry but as a Guardian reader I feel the organ is exaggerating the affective force of British Republicanism. Being opposed to the right wing media this is causing me to think we're surrounded by B******s.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry but ''Get rid'' seems a bit vague as a motivation since we need to know why and how.

Let me help you. You aren't selling it to me. How does a republic elevate the human spirit ...which is all the constitutional monarchy is all about?

That's not the post I was referring to. I answered when you asked me the question about 'British republicanism ' earlier in the thread.
You ignored it.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sorry but as a Guardian reader I feel the organ is exaggerating the affective force of British Republicanism. Being opposed to the right wing media this is causing me to think we're surrounded by B******s.

What do you disagree with in the article?