[Politics] Is it time for the UK to become a republic?

[usernamed]

Yes 43 countries have monarchs, and our own King is head of state in 15 countries although he may lose two of them in the near future.

I’m sorry, and again I mean no disrespect to you personally, but saying 43 countries have monarchs is not a recommendation or argument for having a monarchy, it’s just a numerical statistic. It’s estimated that over 490 million people in the world have herpes, but I assume you don’t advocate for joining them?

Also, as I understand it, the King’s position as head of state is under review in the Bahamas, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, Jamaica and St. Kitts and Nevis, the number of countries willing to facilitate such a system is an ever shrinking pool.

 

[Bold Seagull]

is this based on evidence, or your own projected view? there are dozens of monarchies around the world, including Spain, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Japan. are they all laughing stocks too?

Most of them hugely scaled down to the extent they are much closer to the people than the thought of some kind of divinity. The Spanish Royal family for example, having been deposed twice and a failed coup in 1981 generally keep their heads down and don't have the trimmings and trappings of Royal yachts, or great palaces. Many of those have also made very clear their constitutions with no ambiguity or grey areas.

The House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha have excelled at keeping themselves relevant and perpetuating their own legacy. There are other monarchies as you mention, but none have been as successful as the Windsors at keeping the machine going and growing. Not many other countries allow their Royal Families such wealth, luxury and extravagant lifestyles through so much of the extended family. It's nicknamed The Firm for very good reason.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Yes, of course it is. We are a laughing stock internationally.

Operating a monarchy in this century is rather like going to the GP and being prescribed leeches. Things have moved on a bit, we just seem backward.

And yet, most countries sent a head of state to represent their country at the funeral. They weren't laughing.

Some countries didn't, of course. Russia and China, for example. I think you're right that Russia and China think our system is risible, but I wouldn't take that as a recommendation for change.

 

[cunning fergus]

I’m sorry, and again I mean no disrespect to you personally, but saying 43 countries have monarchs is not a recommendation or argument for having a monarchy, it’s just a numerical statistic. It’s estimated that over 490 million people in the world have herpes, but I assume you don’t advocate for joining them?

Also, as I understand it, the King’s position as head of state is under review in the Bahamas, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, Jamaica and St. Kitts and Nevis, the number of countries willing to facilitate such a system is an ever shrinking pool.

Like others who hold a strong view on changing the monarchy, what is the model you want?

Exec president like US and France
Non Exec president like Ireland and Germany

How do we elect them……pray tell?

 

[beorhthelm]

Most of them hugely scaled down to the extent they are much closer to the people than the thought of some kind of divinity. The Spanish Royal family for example, having been deposed twice and a failed coup in 1981 generally keep their heads down and don't have the trimmings and trappings of Royal yachts, or great palaces. Many of those have also made very clear their constitutions with no ambiguity or grey areas.

The House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha have excelled at keeping themselves relevant and perpetuating their own legacy. There are other monarchies as you mention, but none have been as successful as the Windsors at keeping the machine going and growing. Not many other countries allow their Royal Families such wealth, luxury and extravagant lifestyles through so much of the extended family. It's nicknamed The Firm for very good reason.

thats alot of distraction from the question, are the other constitutional monarcies considered laughing stocks?

seems the perception of their wealth keeps interrupting the basic question of having the monarchy or not. imo it doesnt come into it as a matter of principle. i've come to see less value to the monarchy, then people wade in with silly arguements like "we're a laughing stock" or "get rid cause they're rich". they will still be wealthy, while the costs of maintaining palaces, staffing state events and a head of state will continue.

 

[Bold Seagull]

thats alot of distraction from the key question, are the other constitutional monarcies considered laughing stocks?

seems the perception of their wealth keeps interrupting the basic question of having the monarchy or not. imo it doesnt come into it as a matter of principle. i've come to see less value to the monarchy, they people wade in with silly arguements like "we're a laughing stock" or "get rid cause they're rich". they will still be wealthy, while the costs of maintaining palaces, staffing state events and a head of state will continue.

You've followed a lot of distraction with a lot of distraction. Well played.

 

[Swansman]

Your monarchy is not a laughing stock... neither do we sit at other places in the world feeling jealous or impressed by your "pomp and pageantry" that you're so proud of.

Fact is, most people in the world don't really give a shit. When people look abroad, they take a quick look at the US, Russia and China (or a neighbouring country) sometimes because they are the real giants who could potentially **** up everyday life. Other than that, people are too busy caring about their own domestic situations. The UK is not the center of the world.