The Queen is dead.

[ProfessorDavey]

There you go then.  Where do you think we would be on the ratings without the monarchy?

Perhaps like the French and the Germans who seems to comfortably beat us on the overall measures for soft power, without the need for a monarch.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps like the French and the Germans who seems to comfortably beat us on the overall measures for soft power, without the need for a monarch.

I’m sure you can rise and fall in such ratings and of course soft power isn’t the only reason for not bothering with a republic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, really. Your ineptitude is not my concern to help.

No republic? No problem.

[ProfessorDavey]

I admit I have less votes than say Gordon or welsh friends but that is not related to monarchy.

Do you Vlad - I guess it depends where you live in England and how many layers of democratic government there are in your area.

When my father was alive he (living in Dumfries) had exactly the same number of votes as I did - four - in my case District Council, County Council, UK parliament and at the time EU Parliament. My father Unitary Council, Scottish Parliament, UK parliament and at the time EU Parliament.

Had I been living about half a mile away I'd have had more votes then my father as I'd have had a Parish Council too.

[ProfessorDavey]

I’m sure you can rise and fall in such ratings and of course soft power isn’t the only reason for not bothering with a republic.

But the point is that there seems to be no evidence that monarchies add to soft power so your point isn't justified as it implies that being a republic would somehow be a drag on soft power. You cannot sustain that view with evidence.

[Aruntraveller]

Don't think so since my argument is that the monarchy is independent of the British Political system in many respects not least it doesn't impinge on the adequacy of the democracy I enjoy.

I repeat for the Vlard of hearing, you have no idea or not whether the monarchy impinges on the adequacy of the democracy you enjoy, because you don't know how the Royal family impinges on that democracy, because they don't tell us.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But the point is that there seems to be no evidence that monarchies add to soft power so your point isn't justified as it implies that being a republic would somehow be a drag on soft power. You cannot sustain that view with evidence.

There is no real guide in the wiki as to exactly where this soft power comes from, heck there's no real agreement on how to measure it but I think that the areas in which we are deficient in comparison to France and Germany probably have nothing to do with Monarchy. Do you have the figures for when France and Germany became republics?

[Nearly Sane]

No republic? No problem.

And yet another non sequitur from you.

[Nearly Sane]

There is no real guide in the wiki as to exactly where this soft power comes from, heck there's no real agreement on how to measure it but I think that the areas in which we are deficient in comparison to France and Germany probably have nothing to do with Monarchy. Do you have the figures for when France and Germany became republics?

So we can, by your own admission, dismiss your claims about soft power.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't find anything particularly appealing about a 'British republic'. Hence why I phrased my post about why I am a republican, rather than a 'British republucan'. Nor is it sonething that I support because it is 'appealing'. Rather it seems to me that the hereditary principle in terms of a head of state is a illogical restriction on democracy which instills an establishment into the govt. Further it seems an inwarranted restriction on any individuals who are part of that institution.

To answer your second question, no.

Just to help out Vlad, this is my post about why I am a republican that he's ignored 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just to help out Vlad, this is my post about why I am a republican that he's ignored

You will have gathered that you haven't sold me on either the illogicality of it or the restriction of democracy (Partly because there are circumstances which are unamenable to democracy or voting). In terms of restriction of individuals, Edward VIII seemed to have a get out.

[Gordon]

You will have gathered that you haven't sold me on either the illogicality of it or the restriction of democracy (Partly because there are circumstances which are unamenable to democracy or voting). In terms of restriction of individuals, Edward VIII seemed to have a get out.

Too late to worry about him now, Vlad: this is now, and we need to be rid of the lunacy of a hereditary monarchy a.s.a.p.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is no real guide in the wiki as to exactly where this soft power comes from, heck there's no real agreement on how to measure it but I think that the areas in which we are deficient in comparison to France and Germany probably have nothing to do with Monarchy.

Each ranking approach has its own way of measuring things, which you can get by following the links from wiki to the various organisations. The value of a 'basket of rankings' in this case four, is that the approach of one is likely to balance the approach of another, so this is probably a pretty good overall picture.

Overall there seems to be no relationship between whether a country is a republic or has a monarchy in terms of soft power. So if I am reading this correctly 17 countries appear at least once in the various rankings - of those 10 are republics and 7 are monarchies.

So if pressed you could argue that being a republic correlates with better soft power (note that the number one in all cases is a republic and at least two of the top three in all cases is a republic). But I wouldn't go that far at all - what isn't sustainable from the evidence is a view that a monarchy helps soft power.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Too late to worry about him now, Vlad: this is now, and we need to be rid of the lunacy of a hereditary monarchy a.s.a.p.
 

Good luck with that...although the attention seeking behaviour and opinions of republicans seems to be garnering exaggerated coverage at this time...

[Nearly Sane]

You will have gathered that you haven't sold me on either the illogicality of it or the restriction of democracy (Partly because there are circumstances which are unamenable to democracy or voting). In terms of restriction of individuals, Edward VIII seemed to have a get out.

Being in the 'royal family' extends well beyond the first in line. And Eddie's action then led to exile.

Simply saying you don't accept an argument isn't a argument 

[ProfessorDavey]

In terms of restriction of individuals, Edward VIII seemed to have a get out.

Sure, any monarch can abdicate - but that is their decision. Edward VIII chose to abdicate - as far as I'm aware he couldn't have been forced out constitutionally had he chosen to stay.

And the thing that forced him out, if you like, wasn't his nazi sympathies or his unsuitability for the role, but his desire to marry a divorcee. So it wasn't that he was 'bad' that forced him out, merely that his choice of spouse wasn't approved of. But that wouldn't happen now as we know that a monarch can be married to a divorcee.

Over to you for an example of a monarch being forced out for being bad - or even just being a bad monarch or, as has happened several times either a totally absent monarch [Victoria] or a monarch completely incapable of fulfilling their duties [George III].

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Each ranking approach has its own way of measuring things, which you can get by following the links from wiki to the various organisations. The value of a 'basket of rankings' in this case four, is that the approach of one is likely to balance the approach of another, so this is probably a pretty good overall picture.

Overall there seems to be no relationship between whether a country is a republic or has a monarchy in terms of soft power. So if I am reading this correctly 17 countries appear at least once in the various rankings - of those 10 are republics and 7 are monarchies.

But aren't republics are more numerous than monarchies. That would make monarchies over-represented in some way wouldn't it.

So if pressed you could argue that being a republic correlates with better soft power

Not if monarchies are over-represented.

(note that the number one in all cases is a republic and at least two of the top three in all cases is a republic). But I wouldn't go that far at all - what isn't sustainable from the evidence is a view that a monarchy helps soft power.

Although you did mention language which in the case of Britain was spread by it's imperial and commonwealth activities

[Nearly Sane]

One of the interesting things about Vlad's position is that he thinks that the UK electorate cannot be trusted to elect an 'intellectual president' like the Irish because they will just elect a celebrity but they are to be trusted on choosing a constitutional monarchy. The basic disconnect between these 2 ideas illustrate Vlad's flawed 'thinking'.

[Nearly Sane]

But aren't republics are more numerous than monarchies. That would make monarchies over-represented in some way wouldn't it.  Not if monarchies are over-represented.  Although you did mention language which in the case of Britain was spread by it's imperial and commonwealth activities

Interesting to see Vlad cheerleading for imperialism. Bit racist of you, Vlad.

[ProfessorDavey]

Interesting to see Vlad cheerleading for imperialism. Bit racist of you, Vlad.

And desperately clutching at straw.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One of the interesting things about Vlad's position is that he thinks that the UK electorate cannot be trusted to elect an 'intellectual president' like the Irish because they will just elect a celebrity but they are to be trusted on choosing a constitutional monarchy. The basic disconnect between these 2 ideas illustrate Vlad's flawed 'thinking'.

This may be the Land of Boaty McBoatface, Brexit and electing that funny man off the telly but at least they haven't seriously toyed with the disasterous idea of replacing the constitutional monarchy with a Republic.

[ProfessorDavey]

Some interesting polling - I think the first comprehensive polling since the Queen has died.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/c2lzp15u60/TheTimes_RoyalFamily_Results_220912.pdf

My summary.

1. Despite wall to wall royal family for days the proportions supporting/not supporting a monarchy have hardly budged - current numbers vs numbers in May in brackets
Support monarchy - 64% (62%)
Oppose monarchy - 21% (22%)

2. Hugely majority feel the Queen was a good monarch

3. Despite having been monarch for so long very few people had actually met the Queen - just 2%, with 27% having 'seen' her.

4. Big winner is Charles - far higher proportion say he will do a good job as King (63%) compared to previously, which was way lower at 30-40% as recently as May. This is often the case when a hypothetical leader actually becomes the person in the role, as it becomes 'real'. Will be interesting to see how public opinion settles, and we won't know that for a considerable time, but interestingly ...

5. A majority of people think Charles should continue to voice his opinions - not sure he will, but suspect that if he does he will get into hot water as monarch.

6. Most people, by a country mile, aren't planning to pay their respects in person - just 4%. Could still be a massive record breaking number heading down to London, but  not really the media impression that somehow just about everyone will be making plans to attend.

7. Tories, women and oldies are far more likely to be pro-monarch.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And desperately clutching at straw.

and that monarchies are over-represented in your top 17 of countries with soft power?

[Nearly Sane]

This may be the Land of Boaty McBoatface, Brexit and electing that funny man off the telly but at least they haven't seriously toyed with the disasterous idea of replacing the constitutional monarchy with a Republic.

Except you praised Ireland for being able to vote for an intellectual unlike the British, so your contradiction remains.

[Nearly Sane]

Some interesting polling - I think the first comprehensive polling since the Queen has died.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/c2lzp15u60/TheTimes_RoyalFamily_Results_220912.pdf

My summary.

1. Despite wall to wall royal family for days the proportions supporting/not supporting a monarchy have hardly budged - current numbers vs numbers in May in brackets
Support monarchy - 64% (62%)
Oppose monarchy - 21% (22%)

2. Hugely majority feel the Queen was a good monarch

3. Despite having been monarch for so long very few people had actually met the Queen - just 2%, with 27% having 'seen' her.

4. Big winner is Charles - far higher proportion say he will do a good job as King (63%) compared to previously, which was way lower at 30-40% as recently as May. This is often the case when a hypothetical leader actually becomes the person in the role, as it becomes 'real'. Will be interesting to see how public opinion settles, and we won't know that for a considerable time, but interestingly ...

5. A majority of people think Charles should continue to voice his opinions - not sure he will, but suspect that if he does he will get into hot water as monarch.

6. Most people, by a country mile, aren't planning to pay their respects in person - just 4%. Could still be a massive record breaking number heading down to London, but  not really the media impression that somehow just about everyone will be making plans to attend.

7. Tories, women and oldies are far more likely to be pro-monarch.

It's the Tories thing that causes Vlad problems. He thinks the electorate are dumb and venal for voting Tory, as he did for their vote for Brexit but their support for the monarchy which are highest amongst those voters he thinks is great. It's a deep fundamental contradiction in his witterings.