"Prince Charles and Camilla, sittin' in a tree . . . "

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
61

<hijack>

Glee - Thank you for sharing. I look forward to you raising the issue in GD and enlightening us all on your alternative proposals for a Head of State who has no party political agenda (let alone an agenda that has little to do with the electoral mandate and a whole lot to do with who funded their campaigns (witness: the US) ) and who has the rather useful quality of only remaining as Head of State as long as they retain popular support – i.e. they have to reflect the people’s interests or they are out, by popular consent.

I like those ‘checks and balances’ qualities. A lot.

IMHO, it’s not about money because we can afford any democracy money can buy – if money is your criteria. It’s about the Head of State’s function within Government as a foil to the Executive and whether the current model can be improved upon.

Making the Head of State party political necessarily gives that individual a vested interest in the democratic process, that isn’t what I want. Ever. Leave that to Parliament (or, at least, until Parliament loses the democratic plot).

Please feel free to enlighten us on a cost-benefit analysis of your proposals whether it be as an alternative for that specific democratic function or for the wider Family, big nose.

</hijack>

62

Just to muddy the hijacked waters further (how’s that for a mixed metaphor!):

As I understand it, the Civil List was a trade. George IV, I believe, desparate for some ready cash, traded the royal families land holdings, works of art and other things for the promise of a yearly income for the senior members of the family. I remember reading an article arguing that, even for a ninny as short-sighted as G4, this was a foolish trade. The British government makes millions of pounds a year off the properties they acquired. IIRC, and I may not, the trade off over the years has been something like 50:1.

If you cancel the Civil List, does that mean that you are planning on returning the properties that were originally traded for it?

63

The Civil List was so named in the early 18th century because the salaries of Civil Servants, Judges etc. were paid from it (until 1831) and it has its origins in the reign of William III.

It was George III who gave up most of the hereditary revenues in 1760 in return for an annual grant.

64

I thought it was Charles II who was renowned for his ‘eye for the ladies’ (several known mistresses and goodness knows how many un-).

65

You must be joking, right?

Yes, the Royals have no ‘political agenda’. That doesn’t matter because they don’t perform any political function. (I skip over the frightening prospect of the Duke of Edinburgh having power to make some bigoted decision if the Queen was unavailable).

Oh, and if they ‘lose public support’ we can replace them, can we? Perhaps you could explain the constitutional mechanism we have to do that.

What ‘checks and balances’ did you have in mind? I didn’t notice the Queen restraining Mrs. Thatcher from the poll tax or starting the Falklands War, nor having any say over left-wing Labour Governments.

I never said I wanted a party political leader. I fully agree with you that an independent person is the best. A Republic can have an elected Leader. They would then have a mandate to ‘reflect the people’s interests’ (which the Monarchy don’t - remember when Windsor Castle burned and the Queen thought we’d queue up to pay for it).
This is far more democratic than having Charles lined up as the automatic Heir, when even his own mother thinks he’s unfit for the job.

Finally the cost-benefit is obvious. You only pay one person to do the job, not a host of minor Royals. (Duchess of Kent, anyone?)

Apologies if this should be in General Debates, but I thought it was so obvious that Charles is morally unfit to be King and Head of the Church that I didn’t expect any disagreement!

66

But regularly overcome. As it were.

(And some might overcome regularity… oh, I’ll stop now).

There are websites devoted to this particular topic.

:eek: And who were their children?!!!

67

Errr… glee, old bean, how many of our esteemed sovereigns since Henry VIII have been “morally fit” to be monarch and head of the Church? Given that you think poor old Charles is disqualified on the grounds of one long-running affair, I imagine the list would be pretty short…

I mean, royalty will have their peccadilloes… and, since we only keep them around for the entertainment value anyway, I think a few juicy scandals are all to the good.

68

ahahah…prince ping pong paddle ears!!! I like that. Seriously, I find the whole issue of PPPPE and the Rottweiler interesting only in the historic or what’s-to-become-of-the-English-monarchy debates. It can be the savings grace topic of discussion when there would otherwise be total, embarassing silence. Otherwise, I think that everyone has the right to be happy with the one they love.

69

I have a question. If I understand correctly, a morganatic marriage happens when the person marrying into the royal family does not attain a royal title as a result of that marriage. That would mean that the current Queen has a morganatic marriage. Why isn’t her husband the King?

70

Well, Prince Philip has a royal title (Prince) and appropriate rank (His Royal Highness); he just hasn’t got - what do they call it? I think it’s the Crown Matrimonial.

Not everyone who marries royalty gets that; I think it’s mostly a political thing. Prince Albert (Queen Victoria’s husband, for the seriously historically challenged) never became King Albert, and I think he was a much more plausible candidate for the honour that the foot-in-mouth afflicted Phil the Greek.

71

Okay, the ignorant American needs a “Royalty 101” class.

If Diana and Charles hadn’t divorced, would she have become Queen Diana? A Queen (in name only) but with no real political power? What would have happened when (King) Charles died? William would be come King, and Diana would become Queen Mother?
(Like the current Queen Mum?)

If Queen Elizabeth abdicated now, what would be her title? Would there be two Queen Mothers?

Is it really feasible that Queen Elizabeth would abdicate in favor of Charles? I heard or read once that she could abdicate in favor of William (meaning Chuckie would be free to marry Camilla). Is that possible? Can she skip over her son for her grandson? Or does Charles automatically become King?
Thanks!

72

D’oh! Okay, I guess I really should have gathered all my thoughts before my last post. What I meant was: Why is he a prince and not a king? Is that the same as a morganic marriage (which I am guessing from Steve Wright’s post above, it is not)?

So if I were the Queen due to being of royal blood, would my husband be the king or the prince? And who decides which title he gets?

And to add on to the question about whether Diana would have been “Queen Diana,” I heard somewhere that she was already of royal blood somehow, which is why she lost her “Princess” title, but not the “HRH” title (or was it the other way around?). So was she royalty already?

The depth of my ignorance on this topic is overwhelming, I know.

73

Diana would have been Queen Consort. The same as the Queen Mum was.

Technically, wouldn’t the Queen Mother’s title also be Queen Dowager?

I don’t know about two dowager queens-is their a precedent?
I know Queen Mary was still alive when her granddaughter was Queen, but she was always known as just plain Queen Mary.

74

“Soon to be leader” or not, surely you’re not suggesting that nobody in America seeks parental approval before they marry? And since this is mainly about religion, I’m sure there are Americans who wouldn’t feel able to marry without the approval of their religious mentor, no?

That’s about the size of it, she would’ve been Queen Diana, head of hospital opening ceremonies/patron of British Fashion Week.

William would become king, Diana would still have been Queen Diana.

No. IIRC the title Queen Mother was invented 'specially for her, to avoid the confusion of having two Queen Elizabeths at the same time - it’s not a regular title that all the old ones get when their husbands drop off the perch. I guess that if she abdicated, Betty would still be called Queen Elizabeth, just like ex-presidents still being called Mr President.

This is slightly outside my knowledge, but I believe they can’t just skip straight to Wills.

I used to consider myself a committed republican, until two words shook my conviction to bits. The words were “Margaret” and “Thatcher”. I’ve never heard of a candidate that would receive widespread support of people here, but plenty of names have been suggested that would get me heading for a convenient grassy knoll next to The Mall.

75

diana couldn’t be queen’s mum because she has no female offspring… unless on a visit to cousins in sweden william underwent an operation. diana will be the king’s mum should william or harry become king.

as to leapfroging over charles… should ppppe (love it) marry camilla without mum’s ok, or become catholic, or a satanist, etc, that would toss him out of crown; and william will be up. just saying he is daft and a twit isn’t enough.

76

Queen MOTHER not, Queen’s Mum. Sheesh!

I believe Queen Alexandra was at times referred to as the Queen Mother, although her official title would have been Queen Dowager, Alexandra of Denmark.

Also, remember, when Lilibet became queen, her mother could not officially be Queen Dowager, as that was Queen Mary.

Of course, wouldn’t she also be able to call herself the Duchess of Edinburgh?

77

Yes, I espect most Monarchs would have failed my simple tests (breed, be faithful, be respectable).

What annoys me is that we don’t ‘keep them around for the entertainment value’. We have soap stars, actors and TV personalities for that. But we can’t get rid of the Royals…

78

Nope.

“Unavailable” as in dead, in the loo ?

Well, you see Glee, it doesn’t happen very often so …shock horror…there is no convenient precedent or mechanism. Bit like reforming the House of Lords, really. Hence you devise a plan that involves an alternative. We both seem keen on a non-political figure and I’d want someone immune from any other influences, especially corporate interests. Any suggestions for nominations ? I think if we leave it to the great British public, Richard Branson might well win the day. Lovely.

Then we’ll need a political party who feels it will gain enough public support for them to include Abolition in their election Manifesto. Then, presumably, they get elected and (as per the Manifesto) hold a Referendum. Then, assuming the pro-abolitionists win, we have more elections to find the President / Head of State.

Then we reorder all the Constitutional relationships within the country (what powers should this individual hold – a token Head of State, a ‘President’, something in between ?, what about legislation – does the Office propose, rubber stamp, have no part of law making ? is there to be any role for the Church, Law Lords ?) and with the 50-ish members of the Commonwealth (most of whom will not have ties within their own Constitutions to anything other than the Monarch). Then there’s the Constitutional relationship with the Armed Forces, with other non-Commonwealth countries, Treaties, etc to deal with – should Sir Richard also be head of the Military ?

Perhaps you have an Academic in mind: Someone with decades of Diplomacy and knowledge of world leaders under their belt – any idea’s ?

Thatcher fell because of the Poll Tax, she became unelectable and the Tory Party knew that – democracy in action. Anyway, not the Monarchs role to become embroiled in raising of Government revenue’s – we vote for that kind of thing. Argentina began the Falklands War. “Left-wing labour” - again, not her role to influence the democratic process.

Ah! Got it. At least all living friends and relatives can make a living ‘lobbying’ on behalf of private interets for the Head of State’s ear. A little free enterprise ! good idea. Can I have dibs on the suppy of brown envelopes ?

Actually, perhaps you are the Voice Of The People. But even Sir Richard lived in sin ya know for years and years…oh yes he did. Then there were the teen abortions as a youger man…hope there’s no other skeletons in the closet that might lead to a little gentle blackmail. Nasty to put a Head of State in that position. Problems, problems…
I can only repeat my earlier point and extend it a little: If there’s a non-party political alternative that doesn’t expose the new Head of State (or thier friends, family or ‘connections’) to any external self-interests and the person can do the International Diplomacy thing, I’ll be game - if you can guarantee me the next Head of State in, say, 4 years, will have the same qualities. And the one after that…

79

Just ill in hospital, for example.

You were the one who said they needed public support to stay on. My point is that there is no way to replace a useless or immoral King, unlike an elected President.

Well I’m not that keen on Branson either. But at least we would have had a choice. (Also Branson works for a living.)
Sometimes the chosen person rises to the occasion, like some Speakers have done.
How about Martin Bell?

I think this would be a great opportunity to bring our Constitution up to date - or do I mean actually have one?
Other countries would have no problem tidying up their treaties - we just go from a hereditary to an elected Head of State.
How about Joan Bakewell?

Of course we never hear how ‘clever’ the Queen is, with all those regular meetings and briefings being confidential.
Didn’t Charles, with the best education money could buy, get 2 ‘C’ grades at A level? Of course he then went to Cambridge - no question of hereditary privilege overcoming lack of intelligence, then.
How about David Attenborough?

Democracy in action, not Monarchy in action.
What is the Monarch’s political role? If she hasn’t got one, where are the ‘checks and balances’?

Even Al Fayed would be ashamed by the amount of money the Royals cost. Are you saying that you approve of these payments?

Yes, but Branson isn’t paid millions of pounds of taxpayers money to be King and Head of the Church. Do you think Charles is morally fit to inherit?
How about Stephen Hawking?

Let’s see: we already pay millions annually and the Queen never says or does anything (although the Duke is famous for his gaffes). And you think a change wouldn’t be for the better?

80

I’m surprised you haven’t chipped in further by now, flodnak. According to the BBC news today the Norwegians are getting used to the idea of Haakon’s choice of bride (the story’s not on the BBC website yet, but here’s the CNN version).

I’m certainly no royalist, but surely the best-run countries are the usual suspects - Holland and the Scandinavian ones - which all manage to have a parliamentary democracy, and a hereditary head of state. This way they have all the necessary public accountability of government and avoid having to pick a head of state from a controversial selection of unsuitable or self-serving celebrities and party politicians.

Seems best to me.