Queen Elizabeth II has died

[decafjava]

Well this clip put a smile on my face as it would anyone interersted in political history.

Just a timeline of British PMs and monarchs set to music.

 

[VulchR]

Looks like the UK pledge for new citizens is:

“I, (name), swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, according to law”

I thought there was an optional version in which one did not have to swear to be loyal to the monarchy but to the country. Anyway, although I respected the Queen and have hopes for King Charles III, having to swear loyalty to a person and their heirs in perpetuity was one of the reasons that I didn't get UK citizenship back when it was available without going through the Inquisition.

 

[Huntn]

It was reported that King Charles was booed in Wales yesterday and the majority of younger people in the UK do not support having a Monarchy.

I thought there was an optional version in which one did not have to swear to be loyal to the monarchy but to the country. Anyway, although I respected the Queen and have hopes for King Charles III, having to swear loyalty to a person and their heirs in perpetuity was one of the reasons that I didn't get UK citizenship back when it was available without going through the Inquisition.

The idea of swearing allegiance to a family and heirs into perpetuity seems completely normal for a Monarchy, but completely foreign to the idea of democratic rule, hence a paradox of sorts.

 

[Ruggy]

A question directed at any knowledgeable adult:

No disrespect for the Monarchy but basically hasn’t it been reduced to a figurehead, public relations, cut ribbons and attract tourists institution? Sure the King is conferred with, but does the monarchy have any veto power over Parliament or any final say in decisions concerning any major issue, money policy/economy, the environment, social power, or the ability to Declare War? When I think head of State in the US it would be the President supported by The State Dept, Ambassadors, Embassys.etc

So in the UK are their embassies reporting to the Prime Minister or to the Monarchy?

Wasn’t the standard that the Queen was not supposed to express an opinion regard major issues?

It's a constitutional monarchy where the monarch carries out all the ceremonial duties of the head of state but none of the political duties. In fact, the monarch is not allowed to interfere in politics at all or express a political opinion as you understand. It would be serious if they did.
But the monarch appoints the government and still has the right to dissolve parliament although according to convention if he/she ever did it they would be forced to abdicate which is why it's known as a bee sting power. This comes from way back when the first Charles dissolved parliament and a civil war ensued.
The monarch does have a lot of soft power however and the PM has to go to the monarch every week to report and when a new government is formed they go to the monarch who must give their approval. Plus, they have to go through all the parliamentary papers every single day (known as 'doing the boxes') and they do have conversations in private giving advice or expressing displeasure at the weekly meetings.
If they ever did dissolve parliament and were forced to abdicate there would be a constitutional crises and then it would be down to which side the military supported, the government or the monarch assuming the monarch went down that route. My money would be on them supporting the monarch.

 

[Huntn]

It's a constitutional monarchy where the monarch carries out all the ceremonial duties of the head of state but none of the political duties. In fact, the monarch is not allowed to interfere in politics at all or express a political opinion as you understand. It would be serious if they did.
But the monarch appoints the government and still has the right to dissolve parliament although according to convention if he/she ever did it they would be forced to abdicate which is why it's known as a bee sting power. This comes from way back when the first Charles dissolved parliament and a civil war ensued.
The monarch does have a lot of soft power however and the PM has to go to the monarch every week to report and when a new government is formed they go to the monarch who must give their approval. Plus, they have to go through all the parliamentary papers every single day (known as 'doing the boxes') and they do have conversations in private giving advice or expressing displeasure at the weekly meetings.
If they ever did dissolve parliament and were forced to abdicate there would be a constitutional crises and then it would be down to which side the military supported, the government or the monarch assuming the monarch went down that route. My money would be on them supporting the monarch.

Thanks for this clarification. This sounds completely messy.

I wonder how much the Monarchy, by reports are incredibly wealthy, costs the UK annually to maintain?

So the King can dissolve Parliament. What steps are required to dissolve the Monarchy?

 

[yaxomoxay]

I wonder how much the Monarchy, by reports are incredibly wealthy, costs the UK annually to maintain?

The balance is certainly positive just by the tourism and merchandise it generates.

What steps are required to dissolve the Monarchy?

Most likely a revolution, of which the result might not match the expectations. Honestly, it’s a system that works and the risks of replacing it with something unknown, not perfected, and open to serious exploit is very present.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Thanks for this clarification. This sounds completely messy.

I wonder how much the Monarchy, by reports are incredibly wealthy, costs the UK annually to maintain?

So the King can dissolve Parliament. What steps are required to dissolve the Monarchy?

I quite often see people here in the UK complaining about the cost of the Monarchy on the ‘tax payer’ but these people don’t usually have any clue about the true benefits to the country by having them. The tourism they bring to the country and billions they generate for the economy more than offsets any cost. We are certainly sending more money abroad or in subsidies to energy companies to help them rip us off at the moment than we pay to our Royal Family. I think the Queens funeral really demonstrated how unique our country is as the world watched in admiration. Some want to get rid of that and just be a bland country for some reason. I don’t have much time for those sorts of people to be honest.

 

[Falhófnir]

The balance is certainly positive just by the tourism and merchandise it generates.

Most likely a revolution, of which the result might not match the expectations. Honestly, it’s a system that works and the risks of replacing it with something unknown, not perfected, and open to serious exploit is very present.

I'm sure a referendum would do it!

The thing is, there is still overwhelming support for the monarchy by some 67% to 20% in favour of keeping. At present it would in fact be antidemocratic for the Government to attempt to remove the Monarchy!

 

[Falhófnir]

Thanks for this clarification. This sounds completely messy.

I wonder how much the Monarchy, by reports are incredibly wealthy, costs the UK annually to maintain?

So the King can dissolve Parliament. What steps are required to dissolve the Monarchy?

 

[yaxomoxay]

I'm sure a referendum would do it!

The thing is, there is still overwhelming support for the monarchy by some 67% to 20% in favour of keeping. At present it would in fact be antidemocratic for the Government to attempt to remove the Monarchy!

Yes but you would agree that the most difficult part would be determining what comes after such referendum, and I don’t mean it as a simple “Republic” choice, but what actually comes after in terms of powers, rules, structure, and interestingly evaluation of precedents as binding/non-binding.

 

[Falhófnir]

Yes but you would agree that the most difficult part would be determining what comes after such referendum, and I don’t mean it as a simple “Republic” choice, but what actually comes after in terms of powers, rules, structure, and interestingly evaluation of precedents as binding/non-binding.

No, I think the overwhelmingly likely model we would use already exists - a parliamentary republic, as seen in Ireland for example. The role of the Monarch would continue largely unchanged, but filled instead by a politician with a regular election cycle. I'm sure there would be those in favour of a presidential republic or semi presidential republic, but I think there would be a lot of force lined up against a wholesale change of the political set up.

 

[circatee]

Honestly, not something I thought I'd see in my lifetime. I also find it weird, am British, and never saw the Queen while I lived in London. But, I spent five years in St. Lucia, and saw her once...

 

[Feek]

It was reported that King Charles was booed in Wales yesterday and the majority of younger people in the UK do not support having a Monarchy.

Where was this reported and what's the evidence for this 'majority'? (note, I don't care about the alleged booing, it's the second part I'm interested in)

 

[Madhatter32]

It is quite sad that a few individuals in this thread have taken the death of a respected world leader who has served dutifully for many decades as an opportunity to opine on matters of politics (in this case, the monarchy as a political construct). Putting aside that these comments violate this forum's clear parameters regarding political discussion, in my view, it's a regrettable reflection of the lack of decorum and civility in society in general. I just wish people could do better.

 

[VulchR]

It is quite sad that a few individuals in this thread have taken the death of a respected world leader who has served dutifully for many decades as an opportunity to opine on matters of politics (in this case, the monarchy as a political construct). Putting aside that these comments violate this forum's clear parameters regarding political discussion, in my view, it's a regrettable reflection of the lack of decorum and civility in society in general. I just wish people could do better.

A little harsh considering the Queen was head of state, but I agree that we have to consider who she was as a extraordinary person, not the politics of monarchy given that it outlived her. We can save the political discussion until a time when the Queen's passing is not so raw to those who mourn her.

 

[Huntn]

Where was this reported and what's the evidence for this 'majority'? (note, I don't care about the alleged booing, it's the second part I'm interested in)

I was advised to watch my political talk here and I am honoring that. However check my sig for a political alternative.

 

[JamesMike]

A world leader who can ‘turn a wrench or spanner’ on their vehicles is not too bad in my book.

 

[Feek]

I was advised to watch my political talk here and I am honoring that. However check my sig for a political alternative.

Right, so no actual evidence then, that's fine. Thanks

 

[laptech]

The problem the UK has with the monarchy is that there are many people who like to spread dissinformation about just how much of tax payers money is spent on the monarchy and because of this there are constant calls from anti-royalists, anti-monarchists and critics of the monarchy to do away with the monarchy based purely on the use of tax payers money. There are only TWO things that tax payers pay for which is the Soverign Grant and security. The soverign grant is money that is used to pay for up keep of the crown properties, places such as Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace and for official engagements (hosting of meetings, food, travel expenses) and wages. Protection of the royal family is a seperate expense that the tax payer pays for. The soverign grants costs the tax payer approx. £1.75 per person a YEAR. Remember, this is a YEAR and people in the UK still complain at this.

The monarchy gives to the UK tax payer a lot lot more than it takes from the tax payer. In contrast the UK's MP's take from the taxpayer a lot more in the form of 'MP expenses' (money to be spent on work related expenses) and more importantly they give nothing back to the UK tax payer (other than normal taxes which everyone in the country has to pay for).

The monarchy is extremely good value for the UK but there will always be those who are upset at losing £1.75 a YEAR.

The Queen will be missed. King Charles has a tough act to follow.

 

[Huntn]

Right, so no actual evidence then, that's fine. Thanks

I told you why I was not answering, but since you challenged the sincerity of my statement I heard it on MSNBC. Through age 24 it’s 30% support, though 50 it’s 53% support.

Young British people want to ditch the monarchy, poll suggests

Young people in Britain no longer think the country should keep the monarchy and more now want an elected head of state, with their mood souring over the last couple of years, a poll on Friday showed.

www.reuters.com

British monarchy loses popularity among young adults

Since the last survey conducted by YouGov in 2019, there has been a change in the mindset of 18-24-year-olds in Britain about still wanting a monarchical constitutional government. As her majesty Q…

thecircular.org

 

[yaxomoxay]

I told you why I was not answering, but since you challenged the sincerity of my statement I heard it on MSNBC. Through age 24 it’s 30% support, though 50 it’s 53% support.

I don’t like what these polls often try to imply, in this case that in the future the monarchy will be less popular to the point that the majority will sooner or later be against the monarchy because “young people” are against it. People will change their mind one way or another. The fact that one age group believes X doesn’t mean that X will expand through time as often the polls are heavily dependent on the latest news and moods.

I am confused by the age brackets in the poll:

18-24 is 6 years.
25-49 is 24 years
50-64 is 14 years
65+ no idea how many years.

Change the age brackets (definition of “young”) and you’ll change the results.

 

[laptech]

I told you why I was not answering, but since you challenged the sincerity of my statement I heard it on MSNBC. Through age 24 it’s 30% support, though 50 it’s 53% support.

Young British people want to ditch the monarchy, poll suggests

Young people in Britain no longer think the country should keep the monarchy and more now want an elected head of state, with their mood souring over the last couple of years, a poll on Friday showed.

www.reuters.com

British monarchy loses popularity among young adults

Since the last survey conducted by YouGov in 2019, there has been a change in the mindset of 18-24-year-olds in Britain about still wanting a monarchical constitutional government. As her majesty Q…

thecircular.org

I would not put any relevance to those polls because a lot of young people in the UK are actually people who were born and raised in foreign countries where they have not lived or dealt with a monarchy therefore their answers are going to be very predictable. Also if the poll was carried out on the streets, where it was done is very important to because if it was done in any town/city that has a major university, many of the young adults will be foreign students attending university.

The UK is heavy multi-cultural, large populations of young adults from the EU (mainly Eastern Europe and former Soviet countries), Africa and Arab countries. Many of these geographical areas do not have monarchs and those that do live by a more strict toltarian rule. All of this can affect a young persons decision of a monarchy.

To get a true idea of the young adults and the monarchy in the UK, polls should talk to those born and raised in the UK, young adults who have lived with a monarchy through their childhood years and young adult years. When it is done that why it is my opinion that the results would not be in favour of abolishing the monarchy.

 

[Huntn]

I don’t like what these polls often try to imply, in this case that in the future the monarchy will be less popular to the point that the majority will sooner or later be against the monarchy because “young people” are against it. People will change their mind one way or another. The fact that one age group believes X doesn’t mean that X will expand through time as often the polls are heavily dependent on the latest news and moods.

I am confused by the age brackets in the poll:

18-24 is 6 years.
25-49 is 24 years
50-64 is 14 years
65+ no idea how many years.

Change the age brackets (definition of “young”) and you’ll change the results.

I would not put any relevance to those polls because a lot of young people in the UK are actually people who were born and raised in foreign countries where they have not lived or dealt with a monarchy therefore their answers are going to be very predictable. Also if the poll was carried out on the streets, where it was done is very important to because if it was done in any town/city that has a major university, many of the young adults will be foreign students attending university.

The UK is heavy multi-cultural, large populations of young adults from the EU (mainly Eastern Europe and former Soviet countries), Africa and Arab countries. Many of these geographical areas do not have monarchs and those that do live by a more strict toltarian rule. All of this can affect a young persons decision of a monarchy.

To get a true idea of the young adults and the monarchy in the UK, polls should talk to those born and raised in the UK, young adults who have lived with a monarchy through their childhood years and young adult years. When it is done that why it is my opinion that the results would not be in favour of abolishing the monarchy.

Because of MR policy, the discussion if not kept at a very shallow level, limited scope is playing with fire, so I’ve said enough already. However I do stand with UK citizens who feel that the Monarchy is a vestige of the past that serves no legitimate purpose in any country that aspires to be a Democracy.

 

[laptech]

Because of MR policy, the discussion if not kept at a very shallow level, limited scope is playing with fire, so I’ve said enough already. However I do stand with UK citizens who feel that the Monarchy is a vestige of the past that serves no legitimate purpose in any country that aspires to be a Democracy.

There is no 'playing with fire' here. You provided 2 polls to back up your claim that the majority of young adults in the UK want the monarchy gone and a couple of us have poured doubts into the legitmacy of both polls with reasons as to why. This is how debates should be, constructive arguments. Things only become 'playing with fire' when people start getting angry or annoyed and start making angry and insulting posts at which point such posts should be reported and removed to allow a sensible to debate to continue forward.

You know what I find ironic about the UK people though. Millions of £££ of tax payers money has been spent on repair and renovation work on the Houses of Parliament and the clock tower Big Ben and yet there has hardly been a peep out of the UK public over it's costs but as soon as the UK media report on repair and renovation works on buildings belonging to the monocary, oh my word there is huge outcry from the public about how the royal family is draining tax payers money.

the UK people are a fickle lot

 

[eyoungren]

I am confused by the age brackets in the poll:

18-24 is 6 years.
25-49 is 24 years
50-64 is 14 years
65+ no idea how many years.

You have to be an American to understand the age brackets.

These are standard age brackets in America that were originally developed by the television industry to determine TV show ratings. Everyone else who came up with polling or surveys just borrowed those age brackets and it just became accepted to divide things out that way.

65+ is used as the top bracket because when the Social Security Act of 1935 was passed, 65 was retirement age.