The head of state of the United Kingdom is passed down through the German Windsor ( formerly Saxe-Coburg and Gotha ) family. There are many reasons why this should not continue:
- It is morally wrong for one person to have so much power, entitlement and privilege purely as an accident of birth.
- We are supposedly a democratic nation with commensurate rights and freedoms. A hereditary head of state is as undemocratic as you can get.
- It is inconceivable, out of a 60 million population, that the next Windsor is the best person for the job.
- The Windsor family are deeply mired in the evil that is freemasonry. We need less of this in our establishment, not more.
- The Windsors are very expensive, about £300 million every year equivalent to the cost of 14,000 nurses, 13,000 police officers and 14,000 teachers. A lot of money for what we get.
- With the Windsors we don’t just pay for a head of state. There is a whole extended family and lots of hangers on to be kept in the highest life style with our money.
- The current Queen has been anodyne and ineffectual, waving and cutting ribbons for over 60 years. Compare and contrast with some great Irish presidents, for instance, who cost their nation a hundredth as much.
- For a long time Prince Charles has been undemocratically and secretly interfering in government with his missives to ministers. This is so very wrong. The “black spider memos” should be published.
It can be done so much better, as Ireland has proven with Mary Robinson, Mary McAleese and Michael D. Higgins. Here are a few suggestions for a democratic UK head of state:
- Ban all freemasons from nomination. They are a state within a state.
- Minimum age 35, as in Ireland.
- Seven year terms, as in Ireland. Maximum of two terms.
- Candidate must never have held elected office before. We don’t want tired old Westminster has beens like Tony Blair in the job.
- A nomination process that sensibly reduces the number of candidates.
The end of Elizabeth’s reign is a very good time to implement this much needed change.
————————————————————————————-
The only Westminster party to officially advocate a republic are The Green Party:
PA600 The Green Party believes that the hereditary principle should have no place in government. Therefore the Green Party advocates that:
No person shall acquire the right to any office of government by inheritance.
An hereditary peerage shall confer no right to sit in Parliament (see PA455).
The monarchy shall cease to be an office of government. The legislative, executive and judicial roles of the monarch shall cease.
Peers and members of the royal family shall have the same civil rights and fiscal obligations as other citizens.
A settlement of property held by the current royal family shall be made, to divide it between that required for the private life of current members of the family and that to be public property.
Permalink
The politicians get enough say and pay on what happens in/to this country. What difference would another one make to better this great country of ours . Very little in my opinion . He/She would just be someone else getting paid a lot of money to do very little .
Permalink
I beg to differ.
Whilst the Royals may cost 300 million a year, Monarchy related merchandise and tourism bring in 500 million. So whilst you could argue that the Monarchy’s legacy could still attract visitors if it was disbanded, that doesn’t change the fact many jobs rely on the Monarchy, and it effectively pays for itself. Furthermore, unlike the official figure, Republic’s figure takes into account security. Which you would have to pay for any head of state. And if you wanted the Monarchy’s legacy to still attract tourists if it was disbanded, the public would still have to pay to maintain the estates.
Besides, the Monarchy is not just about money and tourism. If we were to have the Head Of State as a purely ceremonial role, rather than Cameron or Miliband being a Head of State, we may as well have an institution that is intimately connected with our past. Think of it like this:
-There are Castles all around the country. Rich lords ruled in them whilst peasants suffered. yet we keep them? Why, because they are an part important of our history,and tyrants no longer live in them.
-Similarly, the Monarchy no longer has the burden of commanding any real power. Any “power” it has over the people is merely the result of fawning tabloids. The problem there lies with the press. So now it all the Monarchy is honouring our past.
Secondly, whilst you may argue having a Monarchy is wrong and undemocratic, the public don’t seem to care! As a democrat, you would recognise your view is no more superior to anyone else’s, so if people want the Monarchy – which around 75% do – you have to accept that and not demand a republic.
Maybe a referendum would be appropriate when the Queen dies. But enforce a republic upon the British people, you must be mad!
Permalink
JamesB
When I go to Versailles I can see that the French monarchy generate far more wealth than the Windsors do.
Permalink
James B, I am with you 100%.
Permalink
another sore socialist kicking out at anything to get back at a society that rejected him and his cronies. You want a Socialist republic, off you trot to North Korea or Venezuela, Cuba is out of it now as they just surrendered, but there are also a lot of republics you might like in Africa. The choice is yours.
Permalink
Ray Veysey,
So I am a socialist now! This will come as a huge surprise to a lot of people!
Maybe you should read a bit more of my blog. Try the front page: http://www.bruceonpolitics.com/
Then you can see how silly your comment is.
Permalink
Trouble is with this, is that’s its like Churchill’s comment about democracy being the worst system devised by man, until you try the alternatives.
President Blair anyone?
I rest my case.
Permalink
Stuart,
Try reading the article. It specifically excludes the like of Blair getting the job.
Permalink
Why on earth should anyone be interested in the republican thoughts of a ‘games industry marketer? Admittedly I do agree about Freemasons…but we should make sure we clear them out of the Police & Armed services first.
I travel and have friends across the Globe; I find it interesting to discover how many people in faraway places are interested in the Royals. I have one friend in El Salvador(!) who knows more than the average Brit about the history of our Monarchy. The same could be said about the USA and several countries in South America. Perhaps people especially admire the Royals and the democracy of the UK if they have had recent experience of dictatorship.
As to opening up the royal palaces…Buckingham Palace (owned by the State not the Royal Family) could be open to the public a bit more. I understand HM is not keen on the building and would gladly live elsewhere. Windsor Castle is already open to the public…many of whom visit in the hope of seeing a royal. Of course both are working palaces and are the focus of diplomatic engagements around the year. Windsor has a large community of residents, including all the clergy, adult choristers and musicians of St Georges Chapel. I know I have stayed with one of the lay clerks and the current (very talented) director of music is a friend. Did you know that the lay clerks and organist are paid by HM?