Royal Wedding :D

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ideally, we should all be born with an equal chance, whether we are born with more or less talent than others.

It's not for nothing the PC term in Holland for the poor is the "opportunity poor", because that's what it really is. It's about having the chance to be socially and economically mobile.

As long as people have that chance, does it really matter what makes someone the head of state?

I don't understand?

Yeah that was quite unclear. What I mean is, does it matter that we have a hereditary head of state if the position is purely symbolic, effectively powerless, and the rest of our society is meritocratic?

CiB

We have a perfectly good head Of State and I see nothing in Charles and later William that suggests the monarchy won't continue to thrive. Compare & contrast with any republican Head Of State. Who would run - a failed / retired / ousted politician? No thanks - politicians would insist on more power not less. That's not a good thing. The alternative would be someone in the public eye, and tbh a celeb as Head Of State elected in some X Factor type beauty contest would make us a laughing stock, as opposed to being the object of 2 billion admiring viewers last Friday.

President Stephen Fry; President Vince Cable. Either of those sentences alone should be enough to stop such a nonsensical idea.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ideally, we should all be born with an equal chance, whether we are born with more or less talent than others.

It's not for nothing the PC term in Holland for the poor is the "opportunity poor", because that's what it really is. It's about having the chance to be socially and economically mobile.

As long as people have that chance, does it really matter what makes someone the head of state?

I don't understand?

Yeah that was quite unclear. What I mean is, does it matter that we have a hereditary head of state if the position is purely symbolic, effectively powerless, and the rest of our society is meritocratic?

'Course it doesn't - as I've said - it's totally irrelevant.


For the purpose of the dscussion and the ideal, wich we surely should always be aiming for, the royal system is absolutely not ideal, since it makes society structurually and formally unfair.

rjsterry

notsoblue wrote:

I think that whatever opinion you hold in principle about the monarchy in this country, its pretty hard to argue that they aren't benign. They have no real political power, and everything they do publically is to please the royalists/nationalists that just love to love a monarch. About the worst abuse of their position I can think of is Prince Charles' ridiculous endorsement of homeopathy.

They're a symbolic institution, millions of people love them, I don't see anything particularly wrong with them other than it goes against the principle of egalitarianism. Which lets face it, can't ever really be anything more than a principle in a meritocracy.

I'd argue his interference in the planning process (Chelsea Barracks development, The National Gallery Sainsbury Wing, and the abomination that is Poundbury) are far more damaging than that. His infamous 'carbuncle' comment set the architectural debate back a decade (compare what was actually built with the Grand Projets in Paris to see where we might have been) and condemned us to years of fake clocktowers on supermarkets and other pseudo-vernacular lowest-common-denominator sh!t.

[/rant]

rjsterry

TailWindHome wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

My son can be in that cabinet, he can even be Prime Minister, he is however constitutionally excluded from being the monarch.

Some might say that was a blessing.

He's not that bad.

I meant a blessing for him.

CiB

Rick Chasey wrote:

For the purpose of the dscussion and the ideal, wich we surely should always be aiming for, the royal system is absolutely not ideal, since it makes society structurually and formally unfair.

It is ideal. It means that apart from the minority republican view (around 20% typically these days), none of us are saddled with a Head Of State that's been foisted on us by the great unwashed in the way that Prime Ministers are. Cameron, Brown, Blair, Major, Thatcher, Callaghan, Wilson, Heath, Douglas-Hulme, Macmillan etc - all were extremely unpopular with large parts of the electorate. Show me a monarch in the same time frame that's had anywhere the unpopularity ratings that any one of that lot achieved? You can't because as a non-elected HoS there is a neutrality and therefore an acceptance about a royal head Of State that elected leaders don't get anywhere near. That's a huge benefit.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Yeah that was quite unclear. What I mean is, does it matter that we have a hereditary head of state if the position is purely symbolic, effectively powerless, and the rest of our society is meritocratic?

'Course it doesn't - as I've said - it's totally irrelevant.

For the purpose of the dscussion and the ideal, wich we surely should always be aiming for, the royal system is absolutely not ideal, since it makes society structurually and formally unfair.

I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment, but there are far more effective ways of making society less unfair than tackling the monarchy. In fact, I'd argue that it isn't the royal system that makes society structurally and formally unfair at all. In a sense it is democracy that has made life more unfair since the last election.

I suppose if society is always going to be hierarchical (and I think it is), the best situation you can have is a head of state that has no real power. Anyway, I'm rambling now. :P

bigmat

CiB wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

For the purpose of the dscussion and the ideal, wich we surely should always be aiming for, the royal system is absolutely not ideal, since it makes society structurually and formally unfair.

It is ideal. It means that apart from the minority republican view (around 20% typically these days), none of us are saddled with a Head Of State that's been foisted on us by the great unwashed in the way that Prime Ministers are. Cameron, Brown, Blair, Major, Thatcher, Callaghan, Wilson, Heath, Douglas-Hulme, Macmillan etc - all were extremely unpopular with large parts of the electorate. Show me a monarch in the same time frame that's had anywhere the unpopularity ratings that any one of that lot achieved? You can't because as a non-elected HoS there is a neutrality and therefore an acceptance about a royal head Of State that elected leaders don't get anywhere near. That's a huge benefit.

Isn't that (predominantly) the same monarch we're talking about though? Who admittedly has done a good job... Some of her predecessors probably wouldn't have fared so well in this modern era, and her successor may not either. Also, its easy to be popular or at worst tolerated if you aren't having a direct impact on people's lives. The question here is whether, in principle, a monarchy is a good thing. Rick has succinctly suggested not, you don't appear t have raised many arguments to the contrary (I accept that "neutrailty" is a potential benefit, although the guestlist last Friday wasn't too neutral was it?).

Oh, and "great unwashed"?! Shouldn't there be a smiley after that or something?

tobermory

SO are you saying get rid of politics and just have some despot running the country some thebe we can never get shot of but keep the german royal family no doubt the old tosh that they bring tourists to the country that is also tosh the French got shot of their parasites years a go but Versailles is the most visited attraction in euroland,

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Yeah that was quite unclear. What I mean is, does it matter that we have a hereditary head of state if the position is purely symbolic, effectively powerless, and the rest of our society is meritocratic?

'Course it doesn't - as I've said - it's totally irrelevant.

For the purpose of the dscussion and the ideal, wich we surely should always be aiming for, the royal system is absolutely not ideal, since it makes society structurually and formally unfair.

I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment, but there are far more effective ways of making society less unfair than tackling the monarchy.

We both agree on this.

I like discussing the royals and unfairness because I don't get wound up by it because I don't care and it doesn't matter, but it still covers issues that I hold dear - i.e. equal opportunties.

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I think that whatever opinion you hold in principle about the monarchy in this country, its pretty hard to argue that they aren't benign. They have no real political power, and everything they do publically is to please the royalists/nationalists that just love to love a monarch. About the worst abuse of their position I can think of is Prince Charles' ridiculous endorsement of homeopathy.

They're a symbolic institution, millions of people love them, I don't see anything particularly wrong with them other than it goes against the principle of egalitarianism. Which lets face it, can't ever really be anything more than a principle in a meritocracy.

I'd argue his interference in the planning process (Chelsea Barracks development, The National Gallery Sainsbury Wing, and the abomination that is Poundbury) are far more damaging than that. His infamous 'carbuncle' comment set the architectural debate back a decade (compare what was actually built with the Grand Projets in Paris to see where we might have been) and condemned us to years of fake clocktowers on supermarkets and other pseudo-vernacular lowest-common-denominator sh!t.

[/rant]

Architecture is something thats clearly closer to your heart than mine, but again, if poundbury and homeopathy are his worst crimes then I can live with that!

Theres plenty of non-traditional architecture in London, there are enough people that just ignore what he says. Though I wonder how much influence he has on or how many opinions he shares with the duke of westminster and if that has an effect on London architecture.

Besides, I don't think you can blame him for this country's obsession with mock tudor and other pseudo-vernacular lowest-common-denominator sh!t :P

SimonAH

The one compelling reason for keeping a Royal Family IMO (and I can apply this to hereditary peers as well) is that these families take a multi-generational view and not a four year populist view.

The House of Lords has generally acted as a brake on the more knee-jerk short term populist bits of legislation. In extremis (though usually the crown is very careful to remain out of politics) the Queen could do the same.

I think that the most vituperative abolitionists are really running from a "their wealth and prestige has been handed down to them and if I can't have it why should they" sort of jealously position.

Where do you stop? Prevent sucessful parents from introducing their grown children to valuable contacts? Prevent all inheritance? Make it illegal for two intelligent people to breed cleverer kids than the national average? FFS

bigmat

SimonAH wrote:

The one compelling reason for keeping a Royal Family IMO (and I can apply this to hereditary peers as well) is that these families take a multi-generational view and not a four year populist view.

The House of Lords has generally acted as a brake on the more knee-jerk short term populist bits of legislation. In extremis (though usually the crown is very careful to remain out of politics) the Queen could do the same.

I think that the most vituperative abolitionists are really running from a "their wealth and prestige has been handed down to them and if I can't have it why should they" sort of jealously position.

Where do you stop? Prevent sucessful parents from introducing their grown children to valuable contacts? Prevent all inheritance? Make it illegal for two intelligent people to breed cleverer kids than the national average? FFS

Well, how about drawing the line at somebody a) inheriting the right to be subsidised by the general public and b) claiming that their descendency makes them somehow superior to the rest of us. I don't see anyone arguing that there should be no inheritance or any of the more outlandish straw-man arguments you raise. The "anti" brigade in this debate pretty much all seem to acknowledge that in practical terms abolition of the monarchy would probably make litte difference.

rjsterry

ABK nearly went bust after being dropped from the Sainsbury Wing. Richard Rogers was dropped from the Chelsea Barracks development - I expect there were a few redundancies there too. It's not all his fault of course, but he does stick his oar in and it's difficult to argue that he doesn't have a disproportionate influence as compared to you or I trying to influence the outcome of those two projects. It's not as though he's even any sort of acknowledged authority on architecture.

tailwindhome

CiB wrote:

We have a perfectly good head Of State and I see nothing in Charles and later William that suggests the monarchy won't continue to thrive. Compare & contrast with any republican Head Of State. Who would run - a failed / retired / ousted politician? No thanks - politicians would insist on more power not less. That's not a good thing. The alternative would be someone in the public eye, and tbh a celeb as Head Of State elected in some X Factor type beauty contest would make us a laughing stock, as opposed to being the object of 2 billion admiring viewers last Friday.

President Stephen Fry; President Vince Cable. Either of those sentences alone should be enough to stop such a nonsensical idea.

yes we do have a perfectly good head of state, but I believe that is based on the personal qualities of the current monarch and the esteem in which she is held. However, and this is the key point, it is irrelevent wether or not Charles or William will make a good Head of State, they're getting the job anyway due to there place in the family tree. When they get the job there is sweet FA you or I can do to remove them from that position. They have a job for life irrespective of their ability to do that job.

The rest of your argument is based on the assumption that there is no one else capable of fufilling the role of Head of State and that the public coudln't be trusted with that decision


I seem to recall that the present ruling family weren't that popular over the last 10 years and have been a bit of laughing stock worldwide

UndercoverElephant

tobermory wrote:

SO are you saying get rid of politics and just have some despot running the country some thebe we can never get shot of but keep the german royal family no doubt the old tosh that they bring tourists to the country that is also tosh the French got shot of their parasites years a go but Versailles is the most visited attraction in euroland,

Does it pass the Daily Mail reader's comment tests?

No punctuation - Check.
Imply that the continent of Europe is a single state - Check.
Random influx of characters as keyboard gets a whacking - thebe - Check.
Use of the word 'Parasites' - Check.

All looking good. You, Sir, can post on the Daily Mail comments section without fear.

SimonAH

Aha! So Matt, the real issue is 'they think they're so much better than us, who do they think they are?' right?

tobermory

UndercoverElephant wrote:

tobermory wrote:

SO are you saying get rid of politics and just have some despot running the country some thebe we can never get shot of but keep the german royal family no doubt the old tosh that they bring tourists to the country that is also tosh the French got shot of their parasites years a go but Versailles is the most visited attraction in euroland,

Does it pass the Daily Mail reader's comment tests?

No punctuation - Check.
Imply that the continent of Europe is a single state - Check.
Random influx of characters as keyboard gets a whacking - thebe - Check.
Use of the word 'Parasites' - Check.

All looking good. You, Sir, can post on the Daily Mail comments section without fear.

thanks for that never been a daily mail reader to be honest not my cup of tea to miserable for me give papers the swerve old boy.The only truth is the date.

tailwindhome

SimonAH wrote:

is that these families take a multi-generational view

Of what and to do what?

tobermory

tobermory wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

tobermory wrote:

SO are you saying get rid of politics and just have some despot running the country some thebe we can never get shot of but keep the german royal family no doubt the old tosh that they bring tourists to the country that is also tosh the French got shot of their parasites years a go but Versailles is the most visited attraction in euroland,

Does it pass the Daily Mail reader's comment tests?

No punctuation - Check.
Imply that the continent of Europe is a single state - Check.
Random influx of characters as keyboard gets a whacking - thebe - Check.
Use of the word 'Parasites' - Check.

All looking good. You, Sir, can post on the Daily Mail comments section without fear.

thanks for that never been a daily mail reader to be honest not my cup of tea to miserable for me give papers the swerve old boy.The only truth is the date.

And when i need an English lesson from you i will ask if that's ok with you teacher

CiB

BigMat wrote:

Isn't that (predominantly) the same monarch we're talking about though? Who admittedly has done a good job... Some of her predecessors probably wouldn't have fared so well in this modern era, and her successor may not either. Also, its easy to be popular or at worst tolerated if you aren't having a direct impact on people's lives. The question here is whether, in principle, a monarchy is a good thing. Rick has succinctly suggested not, you don't appear t have raised many arguments to the contrary (I accept that "neutrailty" is a potential benefit, although the guestlist last Friday wasn't too neutral was it?).

Oh, and "great unwashed"?! Shouldn't there be a smiley after that or something?

Same monarch yep. My point was that we've had one Head Of State for nearly 60 years and her approval rating is still high. Politicians are lucky to get a full term before the gloss wears off. Neutrality as Head of State isn't just a 'potential benefit', it's a massive massive benefit in drawing the country together; no-body voted for the other chap see?

The anti-monarchists seem intent on fairness and equality. DDD has v lucidly touched on this, but here's my take as you asked. Society isn't equal or fair. Society isn't flat, or level, it's hierarchical. Pick any grouping and you'll have a top to bottom structure, leaders, organisers, workers, drones, hangers-on. You'll get it in school playgrounds, football teams, football crowds, your work environment, the local bingo hall. Humans naturally organise themselves into hierarchical groups. If all the money was shared out equally tomorrow, how long would it take before most of it ended up pretty much where it is now, with a small number holding onto a large amount of it and the majority watching their brand new 52" plasma TV and brand new Vauxhall Astra rapidly losing their value. That's just how people work. Trying to make it fair is pointless because people aren't equal, people naturally find a level. On that basis of you're going to have a Head Of State in a constitutional monarchy where power resides with the executive and you want to avoid splits of "well I didn't vote for you your majesty", a royal family does the job nicely thank you.

What we have in the UK is a very well established hierarchy, one that isn't the traditional pyramid shape. Although the tip is represented by HM The Queen, power resides with Parliament. The Queen at the top serves as a focal point in many respects, but is completely irrelevant in terms of power. That's why I like it. We have an executive that is accorded power to govern over us, and a layer above that serves as head of state - representing this tribe, this nation internationally with a level of remove from the power base. Not elected by us and not therefore foisted on me by your choice of leader, unlike various governments of most the last 14 years for me, and maybe the previous 18 years for you. Who knows?

Great unwashed didn't get a smiley because it's true. Elections are a great idea in principle but the nutters & unworthies are also allowed a vote, people who have no clue who's who, who stands for what, why things need to change or stay the same. They dilute the vote of those that do care, instead of spending Thursday night at the bingo like every other Thursday.

bigmat

SimonAH wrote:

Aha! So Matt, the real issue is 'they think they're so much better than us, who do they think they are?' right?

Perhaps a bit more subtle than that. I don't even know if the current generation of royals do think they are any better than us. Its more a case of objecting to people being willing to classify themselves (and me) as subjects, rather than any antagonism with the royal family itself.

rjsterry

One other point: an elected president would still need an official residence, transport, security, catering for state events, etc., etc. Why would that be any cheaper than the current head of state.

I think there's an argument that the HoS could be appointed rather than inherit the position (by both houses of Parliament, perhaps) but I reckon a presidential election costs way more than a coronation

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1559658/Records-reveal-Queens-cut-price-Coronation.html

Obama and McCain spent over $1billion last time, and that's every four years.

bigmat

CiB wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Isn't that (predominantly) the same monarch we're talking about though? Who admittedly has done a good job... Some of her predecessors probably wouldn't have fared so well in this modern era, and her successor may not either. Also, its easy to be popular or at worst tolerated if you aren't having a direct impact on people's lives. The question here is whether, in principle, a monarchy is a good thing. Rick has succinctly suggested not, you don't appear t have raised many arguments to the contrary (I accept that "neutrailty" is a potential benefit, although the guestlist last Friday wasn't too neutral was it?).

Oh, and "great unwashed"?! Shouldn't there be a smiley after that or something?

Same monarch yep. My point was that we've had one Head Of State for nearly 60 years and her approval rating is still high. Politicians are lucky to get a full term before the gloss wears off. Neutrality as Head of State isn't just a 'potential benefit', it's a massive massive benefit in drawing the country together; no-body voted for the other chap see?

The anti-monarchists seem intent on fairness and equality. DDD has v lucidly touched on this, but here's my take as you asked. Society isn't equal or fair. Society isn't flat, or level, it's hierarchical. Pick any grouping and you'll have a top to bottom structure, leaders, organisers, workers, drones, hangers-on. You'll get it in school playgrounds, football teams, football crowds, your work environment, the local bingo hall. Humans naturally organise themselves into hierarchical groups. If all the money was shared out equally tomorrow, how long would it take before most of it ended up pretty much where it is now, with a small number holding onto a large amount of it and the majority watching their brand new 52" plasma TV and brand new Vauxhall Astra rapidly losing their value. That's just how people work. Trying to make it fair is pointless because people aren't equal, people naturally find a level. On that basis of you're going to have a Head Of State in a constitutional monarchy where power resides with the executive and you want to avoid splits of "well I didn't vote for you your majesty", a royal family does the job nicely thank you.

What we have in the UK is a very well established hierarchy, one that isn't the traditional pyramid shape. Although the tip is represented by HM The Queen, power resides with Parliament. The Queen at the top serves as a focal point in many respects, but is completely irrelevant in terms of power. That's why I like it. We have an executive that is accorded power to govern over us, and a layer above that serves as head of state - representing this tribe, this nation internationally with a level of remove from the power base. Not elected by us and not therefore foisted on me by your choice of leader, unlike various governments of most the last 14 years for me, and maybe the previous 18 years for you. Who knows?

Great unwashed didn't get a smiley because it's true. Elections are a great idea in principle but the nutters & unworthies are also allowed a vote, people who have no clue who's who, who stands for what, why things need to change or stay the same. They dilute the vote of those that do care, instead of spending Thursday night at the bingo like every other Thursday.

Why thank you. So its principle vs pragmatism. I'll be honest, I usually favour the latter. I wouldn't worry about the "great unwashed" though, I think the sector you describe has a pretty low turnout in elections...

DonDaddyD

CiB wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Isn't that (predominantly) the same monarch we're talking about though? Who admittedly has done a good job... Some of her predecessors probably wouldn't have fared so well in this modern era, and her successor may not either. Also, its easy to be popular or at worst tolerated if you aren't having a direct impact on people's lives. The question here is whether, in principle, a monarchy is a good thing. Rick has succinctly suggested not, you don't appear t have raised many arguments to the contrary (I accept that "neutrailty" is a potential benefit, although the guestlist last Friday wasn't too neutral was it?).

Oh, and "great unwashed"?! Shouldn't there be a smiley after that or something?

Same monarch yep. My point was that we've had one Head Of State for nearly 60 years and her approval rating is still high. Politicians are lucky to get a full term before the gloss wears off. Neutrality as Head of State isn't just a 'potential benefit', it's a massive massive benefit in drawing the country together; no-body voted for the other chap see?

The anti-monarchists seem intent on fairness and equality. DDD has v lucidly touched on this, but here's my take as you asked. Society isn't equal or fair. Society isn't flat, or level, it's hierarchical. Pick any grouping and you'll have a top to bottom structure, leaders, organisers, workers, drones, hangers-on. You'll get it in school playgrounds, football teams, football crowds, your work environment, the local bingo hall. Humans naturally organise themselves into hierarchical groups. If all the money was shared out equally tomorrow, how long would it take before most of it ended up pretty much where it is now, with a small number holding onto a large amount of it and the majority watching their brand new 52" plasma TV and brand new Vauxhall Astra rapidly losing their value. That's just how people work. Trying to make it fair is pointless because people aren't equal, people naturally find a level. On that basis of you're going to have a Head Of State in a constitutional monarchy where power resides with the executive and you want to avoid splits of "well I didn't vote for you your majesty", a royal family does the job nicely thank you.

What we have in the UK is a very well established hierarchy, one that isn't the traditional pyramid shape. Although the tip is represented by HM The Queen, power resides with Parliament. The Queen at the top serves as a focal point in many respects, but is completely irrelevant in terms of power. That's why I like it. We have an executive that is accorded power to govern over us, and a layer above that serves as head of state - representing this tribe, this nation internationally with a level of remove from the power base. Not elected by us and not therefore foisted on me by your choice of leader, unlike various governments of most the last 14 years for me, and maybe the previous 18 years for you. Who knows?

Great unwashed didn't get a smiley because it's true. Elections are a great idea in principle but the nutters & unworthies are also allowed a vote, people who have no clue who's who, who stands for what, why things need to change or stay the same. They dilute the vote of those that do care, instead of spending Thursday night at the bingo like every other Thursday.

+1

tailwindhome

CiB wrote:

The anti-monarchists seem intent on fairness and equality. DDD has v lucidly touched on this, but here's my take as you asked. Society isn't equal or fair. Society isn't flat, or level, it's hierarchical. Pick any grouping and you'll have a top to bottom structure, leaders, organisers, workers, drones, hangers-on. You'll get it in school playgrounds, football teams, football crowds, your work environment, the local bingo hall. Humans naturally organise themselves into hierarchical groups.

Yes in society we have a top and bottom structure but people can move through that structure

Only members of this family tree are eligilible to be Head of State - based on no other criteria than who their father was and irrespective of their ability to do the job, sure you may get a good one now and again but that is no way to select your head of state.

If Charles and William die before Kate produces an hier then Harry is King

Actually ignore that last comment, he's not part of that family.....

rjsterry

So, if the HoS is not chosen by heredity, then how?
Election or Appointment?
By Whom?
How would you/they choose between candidates?
For what term?

There's arguably a reasonably good record of rubbish monarchs being either moved out of the way (by fair means or foul) or sidelined until they pop their clogs, so there is *some* selection for aptitude involved.

CiB

I'm off to play squash in a minute, but hey-ho.

You still don't get it. I don't want someone else to take the place of the royal family; not because they're great or they're crap or they're any points in between. I want them to stay as the continuity and family of HoS because that's how it is. I don't mind them being at the top beacuse that's what we've got, that's what we've had for years and quite honestly Charles & William don't scare me like President Stephen Fry, President T Blair or President X-Factor Winner does and I'll be dead before William & Catherine's eldest akes over. You might not like it but there's a huge benefit in saying "that's how it is because that's how it's always been". At risk of repeating myself, by moving away from a /neutral, apolitical and quite successfull family line as HoS, we're replacing Hobson's choice with your choice, or my choice, and with it you can gaurantee an incremental increase in the power that the holder of that office would yeild along with a steep rise in dissatisfaction amongst the roughly minimum half of the population that actively didn't vote for whoever the new incumbent is. That's what's wrong with electing a head of state; instead of it being the next in line - and let's not forget the next two in line have been groomed from birth on how the job works - instead you get some bloke who wants to be in charge, who wants to make his mark, who sees it as a five maybe ten year job. I don't fancy that thanks.

The big gripe here seems to be that HoS isn't a career option for some of us. TBH, anyone who spends their time arguing the toss over a titular position like this on the internet is never going to be king anyway. Get over it. Only a handful rise to the top. The fact that there happens to be one fewer jobs available for the cream to rise to is a shame, but it's not the end of the world. Go and run BP, or the TUC, if you want to affect people's lives in any great way.

tailwindhome

CiB wrote:

The big gripe here seems to be that HoS isn't a career option for some of us. TBH, anyone who spends their time arguing the toss over a titular position like this on the internet is never going to be king anyway. Get over it. Only a handful rise to the top.

You're not getting it

I'm not going to be King, I realise that and have come to terms with it. Hell I'm not even Head of my own house.

I can't however accept that the Head of State can only be a member of the Church of England and that this discrimination is part of the British constitution

So, if the HoS is not chosen by heredity, then how?
Election or Appointment?
By Whom?
How would you/they choose between candidates?
For what term?

The problem here is how the Monarch would be replaced without tearing up the entire basis of Government and society.

You need to have been invaded by someone else and given independance in the last century or three so you can start with a clean slate. You weren't, so the Monarchy stays. Institutionalised discrimination, f*ckwit children, unsuitable spouses and all.

God Bless them all, for it was He who choose them in the first place (apparently)

rjsterry

TailWindHome wrote:

The problem here is how the Monarch would be replaced without tearing up the entire basis of Government and society.

That's the nub of it really: just swapping a hereditary monarchy for an elected HoS wouldn't really work unless you reformed the whole Executive set up as well (not to mention disestablishing the C of E).