The day this country does become a republic, is the day I’ll clear out.
I think it’s a relatively safe assumption that Britain will remain a constitutional monarchy, at least in our lifetimes. As a nation we’re still relatively conservative and although the ranks of republicans have grown over the years it’s still a minority viewpoint, and will remain so until they come up with a better reason for change than the popular “cost to the taxpayer” argument (~£0.62/person/year in case you’re wondering).
Your sister-in-law needs to check her history. Like I said, Charles is pretty benign compared to his ancestors.
Count me as one of those: Charles has had a very long time to learn how to do it right and he still makes a hash of it. He hasn’t twigged that his father insults people as his shtick so his wife looks better. In Charles’s generation, that’s Anne’s job, not his.
I’m with you, we could go to USA…Oh wait!
I guess my point, which wasn’t very clear, is that if Charles chooses to bypass the throne because he doesn’t want to deal with the increased scrutiny of his life, marriage, wish to become a tampon, etc., can he say, “I pass” and give it to Wills?
He can abdicate if he wants.
He can, but the public’s reaction would be likely to be extremely unfavourable, if, having drawn money from the public purse all his life, he ducks out of the Big Job, for which he is supposed to exist, without a very good reason other than “Can’t be arsed”.
He can, of course. But let me offer this: One major reason for my fascination with the British monarchy as an American is that I was born only a week before Charles – according to my mother’s lifelong account, she and Lilibet had the same due date. As a result, as I grew up, it was a sort of game for the two of us to keep tabs on what “my twin brother” was doing.
He started studying for the job at about age 8. Virtually everything he’s done in his life has been focused on the idea that he will someday be King, and on using it to help prepare for that. (Including the vagaries of his sex life – he could not go out, date, and marry the woman he loved, unless she was “suitable” – and we all know what happened to Diana forced to live in a goldfish bowl.)
To presume that he’ll skip out on the job that’s been his reason for life because Britain’s equivalent of “Entertainment Tonight” wants to paint him as the big bad ogre who didn’t appreciate Diana, is patently absurd.
By the way, can we dispose of the “figurehead” bit once and for all? I’d wax eloquent on what a modern monarch actually does, but I have a feeling that I (or Guinastasia, who knows it pretty much as well) would overdo it. So perhaps a Canadian or Australian might post on the subject of “Gubernatorial-General Powers” and we shift that to “monarch” – noting that the incumbent Queen has a thorough and precise knowledge of the internal workings of the British government dating back to the Churchill premiership, and Charles dating to, probably, Harold Wilson. Any prime minister who is not a completely arrant egotist would think long and hard before throwing away 50 years of expertise and unbiased advice from someone with absolutely no political ambitions. That’s very much behind the scenes, but also an integral part of what makes British-style parliamentary government work. The Queen cannot stop a Government from doing something it’s determined and publicly committed to do (and wouldn’t want to) – but she sure as hell can say “Mr. Prime Minister, what is suggested by your Minister of Mines in this confidential White Paper is likely to leave you and him with egg on your faces. Let me tell you what happened to Callaghan when his man tried it…”
True, but his abdication would need to be confirmed by acts of parliament in the UK and his other 15 realms ala Edward VIII. The same would need to happen if he wished to renounce his claims to the throne before becoming king.
See [thread=404589]this thread[/thread]. Apparently not, or at least not in English.
Me too! The day NZ ditches the Monarchy to become a republic is the 2nd time I will ever go on a protest march. I know it may be different for British people but for Kiwis (in my opinion) the Monarchy helps save us from meglomaniac-wannabe-ex-politiciations-who-could-be-presidents! There is a reason they are no longer politicians…we were fed up with them.
The day we ditch the monacarchy they will all come out of the woodwork looking for a job. President Bolger??? NOT in my lifetime! Think of Presidents…hmmm Bush/Chirac. Yeah that sounds good! LONG MAY SHE REIGN!
Charles as been much maligned. Why? Because he foolishly married some silly young goose rather than the woman he loved. Charles will make a wonderful King. He is mostly his mother’s son (seriously other then Di what badness has he done…so he talks to plants and wants England to look like yesteryear) BUT enough of his father’s son (see the odd gaff. Daddy really is a cranky odd individual) to make a solid yet interesting monarch.
Camilla is STREETS ahead of the dimwitted blonde in Wife-to-Monarch stakes. She is sensible and humble, she has known him for eons and understands the whole media pressure thing, she LOVES him (did the blonde? Or did she love the fairy story?) and she never once trired to kill herself with a lemon zester!
I hope NZ is a Monarchy for as long as I’m alive and while I wish old Liz all the best (and think she is brilliant!) I do hope Charles gets a turn to be a bloody good King.
How?
How? Well we are only beneficeries of the Monarchy it costs us less then bugger all yet it saves us from President BOLGER (the current Ex-PM-looking-for-a-job type). NZ does not to have a Presidential election…to get a president we would have to decide Liz was dreadful and some doofus could do better.
I know the monarchy costs the average British tax payer heaps but seriously think about the alternative!
It is far cheaper for us…seriously who needs a President Bolger!
The last time somebody worked it out it was only 62 pence per person per year.
And it costs the average Kiwi even less! Why would we want a president?
I don’t see how being a republic here in NZ would be any different from the monarchy we have now. We aren’t ruled directly from the UK anymore. That ended when we attained Dominion status early last century. Instead, we had and do have an appointed series of functionaries, intially nobs from the Old Country, and now nobs from NZ. They’re symbolic, and they rubber stamp the set-up of Parliament and laws enacted by the government.
It all depends on whether you just change the title from Governor-General to President and leave the nobs as they are today (appointed by the government of the day, not the people) or go for the dual election thing of President and Prime Minister. Really, though – I don’t see any fundamental change in the checks and balances as compared with what we have today.
Assuming the role of a President here would be the same as that in America or France is just that – an assumption.
If the British monarchy ceased tomorrow, I really wouldn’t be all that fussed. Ditto if Queen Elizabeth abdicated. If we were to become a republic here, I’d be similarly unconcerned – it would simply be a transfer of titles, and we might even get a proper constitution finally.
Under the terms of the 1937 Regency Act, all it requires is for three or more of the monarch’s spouse, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice of England and the Master of the Rolls to certify that he or she is incapacitated. The next in line to the throne then becomes Regent. So the main beneficiary, i.e. Charles, wouldn’t get a say in the decision.
I reckon that the posters who pointed out that the monarchy gets rid of one more politician, have a very good point.
Open up a vacant slot called ‘Head of State’ and it will turn into an elected presidency, one more politician - and a total disruption of existing constitutions.
Keep good hold of nurse
For fear of finding something worse
I can’t speak for NZ, but in the UK it wouldn’t even be an assumption. There’s no way the House of Commons (which is very protective of its own power) would agree to a powerful presidency actually running things and independent of them. With the current system the head of government is chosen from their members and can be removed by a simple majority vote in the House; and though the Queen is independent of them she has few real powers. For the House of Commons to change that setup would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. The most you might get would be a ceremonial presidency like in Ireland with the Prime Minister’s job remaining the same.