Prince Charles becomes longest-serving Prince of Wales [Archive]

View Full Version : Prince Charles becomes longest-serving Prince of Wales

-:Undertaker:-

11-09-2017, 03:19 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-41179772

Prince Charles becomes the longest-serving Prince of Wales

http://i4.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article7373468.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/DHP_MAI_040714charlie04JPG.jpg

Prince Charles has become the longest-serving Prince of Wales in history.

On Saturday he took the record from King Edward VII who held the title for more than 59 years before becoming monarch in 1901 after the death of Queen Victoria.

From Prince Charles' 1969 investiture at Caernarfon Castle to the 2006 purchase of his official Welsh home in Carmarthenshire, he certainly has a long history with the country.

But while one Welsh historian says his relationship with Wales is "symbolic" another says he has a "vital role".

Prof Peter Stead believes the prince, who has held the title for 59 years, one month and 15 days, has faced both frustration and achievement over the decades.

But he thinks Wales should "delight" in its "rather eccentric" prince.

http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article2787745.ece/ALTERNATES/s1227b/Prince-Charles.jpg
Prince Charles being crowned as Prince of Wales by Queen Elizabeth II

History of the Prince of Wales title

- In 1301 Edward of Caernarfon, the future Edward II, was invested as Prince of Wales - this was the first time the eldest son of the King of England had been bestowed the title.

- Since then, only one native Welshman, Owain Glyndwr has had a claim to the title, and was proclaimed as such in 1400.

- His armed revolt was defeated in 1409 and marked the end of native princes for good. Since then the eldest son of the reigning monarch has been made Prince of Wales.

- The title is not automatic and has to be created each time by the reigning monarch. It is not an hereditary title.

- Prince Charles is the 21st Prince of Wales in the current line.

- The previous longest-serving holder of the title was Edward VII. The then Albert Edward was created Prince of Wales on 8 Dec 1841 when he was just one month old old. He acceded to the throne as Edward VII on 22 Jan 1901, meaning he served as Prince of Wales for 59 years, one month and 14 day.

- Prince Charles was created Prince of Wales when he was nine years old on 26 July 1958. He has now held the title for 59 years, one month and 15 days. He was not invested at Caernarfon Castle in Gwynedd until 1 July 1969, aged 20.

- Prince Charles is also the longest-serving heir apparent in British history.

Another record broken.

Earthquake

11-09-2017, 07:01 PM

When the Queen passes away, I think it is time to become Republican.

-:Undertaker:-

11-09-2017, 07:14 PM

When the Queen passes away, I think it is time to become Republican.

You'd like a President Blair and First Lady Cherie lording it over us all in Buckingham Palace?

"Ladies and Gentlemen, Your Excellency the President of the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Mr Blair" :Sick:

dbgtz

11-09-2017, 07:20 PM

it's been 10 years since Blair was PM stop living in the past
it would essentially be the same bleedy job anyway

Earthquake

11-09-2017, 10:11 PM

You'd like a President Blair and First Lady Cherie lording it over us all in Buckingham Palace?

"Ladies and Gentlemen, Your Excellency the President of the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Mr Blair" :Sick:

Blair has not a single thread of hair able to come back into office, the man is a vile snake who lied to the public about going to war.

it's been 10 years since Blair was PM stop living in the past
it would essentially be the same bleedy job anyway

Exactly.

The whole Royal family is not what this country needs now, we are speaking about millions upon millions wasted on security, housing, holidays just for one family.

-:Undertaker:-

11-09-2017, 10:24 PM

Left wing writer George Orwell wrote the best defence of monarchy many years ago. Let me share the passage with you -

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CgkKTzBWYAAmfZW.jpg:large

This was certainly the case in Germany where Hitler had to wait for the immensely popular President and former General Paul von Hindenburg to pass away before assuming total control. Had Hindenburg, a monarchist himself, had an heir awaiting then it is quite possible - although not certain of course - that Hitler's path to total power would have been impeded. Germany at that time lacked that constitutional barrier that we are blessed to have as a constitutional monarchy.

it's been 10 years since Blair was PM stop living in the past
it would essentially be the same bleedy job anyway

No, because the fact is that at the height of his popularity and dark arts Blair would have won a Presidential election hands down - a President Blair and First Lady Cherie in Buckingham Palace would have been a stone cold reality. As would a President Nick Clegg in 2010 and a President Nigel Farage in 2012 - all of these politicians personal popularity ratings at one time would have propelled them into a Presidency if it had existed at the time. Republicans I assume think this is better than a King Charles III - I say let them argue that.

And as for the same job, yes it would be without constitutional changes. However the job would become political, and if you are happy with the post of Head of State becoming political and in the grip of the major political parties then again I say argue for it.

Blair has not a single thread of hair able to come back into office, the man is a vile snake who lied to the public about going to war.

That revulsion towards Blair - quite justified I agree - is the best argument for constitutional monarchy. Look at the United States now as to how people speak of George W Bush, Barack Obama and Donald J Trump - and compare with Her Majesty the Queen.

The whole Royal family is not what this country needs now, we are speaking about millions upon millions wasted on security, housing, holidays just for one family.

So you're saying what the country needs is millions of millions still used on one family - the First Family - but with the added cost of elections to the post every 5 years. Along with turning a neutral position into one which divides the country rather than unites it?

dbgtz

11-09-2017, 11:35 PM

To be clear, I'm not inherently against a monarchy.

Left wing writer George Orwell wrote the best defence of monarchy many years ago. Let me share the passage with you -

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CgkKTzBWYAAmfZW.jpg:large

This was certainly the case in Germany where Hitler had to wait for the immensely popular President and former General Paul von Hindenburg to pass away before assuming total control. Had Hindenburg, a monarchist himself, had an heir awaiting then it is quite possible - although not certain of course - that Hitler's path to total power would have been impeded. Germany at that time lacked that constitutional barrier that we are blessed to have as a constitutional monarchy.

Firstly, let's not ignore the fact our monarch doesn't get involved in legislation.

I'm pretty sure that the government at the time had no majority, and it was simply a result of grubby deals or manipulation that lead to Hitler passing the necessary legislation. In fact, a quick google search indicates von Hindenburg kicking it all off with the Reichstag Fire Decree.

Let us also not forget the UK is said to have the most fascist movements (though I somewhat doubt this myself and could never find a source for this after seeing the map). Though, many would argue that the current government has fascist tendencies. Trying to seize power similar to the Nazi party in 1933; seemingly trying to gain the ability to pass legislation without Parliaments consent (again, similar to the Nazi party); the dodgy DUP deal and authoritarianism in general. Going back to the repeal bill again, the talk from David Davi(e)s telling Labour to not "frustrate" the vote otherwise it subverts democracy or something when really, the opposite is true.

No, because the fact is that at the height of his popularity and dark arts Blair would have won a Presidential election hands down - a President Blair and First Lady Cherie in Buckingham Palace would have been a stone cold reality. As would a President Nick Clegg in 2010 and a President Nigel Farage in 2012 - all of these politicians personal popularity ratings at one time would have propelled them into a Presidency if it had existed at the time. Republicans I assume think this is better than a King Charles III - I say let them argue that.

And as for the same job, yes it would be without constitutional changes. However the job would become political, and if you are happy with the post of Head of State becoming political and in the grip of the major political parties then again I say argue for it.

I'd have liked to have seen President Blair.

That revulsion towards Blair - quite justified I agree - is the best argument for constitutional monarchy. Look at the United States now as to how people speak of George W Bush, Barack Obama and Donald J Trump - and compare with Her Majesty the Queen.

Easy to be liked when you don't really get involved. If Blair was in her position he wouldn't have been disliked either I'm sure. In fact, most of the dislike towards him is Iraq related.

So you're saying what the country needs is millions of millions still used on one family - the First Family - but with the added cost of elections to the post every 5 years. Along with turning a neutral position into one which divides the country rather than unites it?

Why would a president need millions and millions spent on them? The PM only earns ~ £140k per annum including their MP duties.
The added cost of elections? You mean this democracy you like to bang on about?
Can't really speak about dividing a country either when Brexit has probably divided a lot more people than the abolition of the monarchy would. The monarchy really doesn't affect peoples lives and I think you're assuming a lot of people have that strong of an opinion either way. You can talk about how people were obsessed with Diana or are seemingly obsessed with Kate and William, but in reality the media pushes for it. If they stopped, very few people would really be that upset.

-:Undertaker:-

11-09-2017, 11:54 PM

On the popularity of the monarchy, it is actually very popular.

Even in the Commonwealth of Australia, on the other side of the world, republicans failed in the 1999 referendum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999) to abolish The Crown and become a republic. This was despite the fact the monarchy at that time was at its lowest ebb with the marriage breakdowns and death of Diana, Princess of Wales - as well as the fact many of the Australian politicians and journalists were for a republic.

That people would advocate the end of a much loved thousand year institution, rich with ancient English and Scottish traditions, to be replaced with an unloved office with an unloved politician puzzles me. Long Live The Queen (and her successors). :P

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/

The monarchy's enduring popularity has been confirmed by new YouGov research, with a resounding 68% of the British public believing the institution to be good for the country. It comes as Queen Elizabbeth II becomes the longest serving monarch in British history - overtaking Queen Victoria’s reign of 63 years, seven months and two days.

Support for the institution is wide ranging - with the monarchy gaining majority support from voters of all political parties and every age group. Older people are most enthusiastic, with almost eight in ten over-60s saying the monarchy is good for Britain.

Looking to the future, the majority is even confident that the Royal Family is here to stay. More than six in ten (62%) believe Britain will still have a monarch in 100 years' time – a view that hasn’t changed dramatically since the Jubilee in 2012.

The British public fully support the monarchy continuing. Over seven in ten (71%) adults believe the British monarchy should remain, with less than a fifth (18%) saying we should have an elected head of state instead.

This view has remained roughly consistent over the last few years of YouGov research.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/13496/Monarchy%20charts.png

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/13496/Monarchy%20charts.png

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/13497/Monarchy%20-%20Combined.png

Why would a president need millions and millions spent on them? The PM only earns ~ £140k per annum including their MP duties.

Because, exactly like the monarchy, it would require the exact same security as Head of State. Many of the costs of the monarchy are the upkeep of the palaces and castles which would be kept for a President - Head of States don't slum it - so unless you're advocating flattening Buckingham Palace, the Palace of Westminster and Edinburgh Castle and replacing with some RedRow housing then you're still going to be paying for the upkeep of stately buildings.

The added cost of elections? You mean this democracy you like to bang on about?

Well yes, it would be an added cost.

You can't say you want a republic to save money when it would do the opposite. You may think that added cost for Presidential elections every 5 years to be worth it in the democratic sense - fine position to hold - but don't at the same time claim lower costs lol.

dbgtz

12-09-2017, 07:54 PM

-:Undertaker:-

15-09-2017, 09:30 PM

Hey how about replying to the part about fascism, you know, the bulk of what I was saying beforehand rather than ignoring it. Is it because you know you're wrong? Do you also need poking in the direction that Italy had a king and that our King had also been slightly cosying up to Adolf?

Germany

Firstly in regards to Germany, President Hindenburg did sign into law Nazi doctrines along with appointing Hitler into government. But like you said, you've just done a Google search. If you knew the motives - Hindenburg ultimately had his hands constitutionally tied as the Preisdent and not the Chancellor, and his motive in appointing Hitler if my recollection serves me right was that he would be "shown up" in power.

If you read the history on the period though you will know that Hindenburg's presence was a great irritation to Hitler and certainly put brakes on his acquisition of power in Germany, hence the wait for Hindenburg to pass away. My argument simply is that quite possible, had Hindenburg been a monarch with an heir waiting in the wings then although possibly still toppled in the end, this would have led to more of a rebellion in Germany against Nazi rule.

The actions of King Haakon VII of Norway in refusing to collaborate with Nazi Germany along with Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands and King Christian X of Denmark inspired rebellion amongst the Norweigans, Danes and Dutch people - hence why Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark all remain kingdoms to this very day.

Italy

In terms of King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy, you'll notice I did not state that monarchy is an absolute guarantee against dictatorship. Of course it is not - sometimes monarchy (although rarely constitutional) can even be the cause of a dictatorship like modern day Saudi Arabia or Imperial Germany. But it is a constitutional defence nevertheless because if you compare the constitutional monarchies of Britain, Norway, Sweden, Belgium Denmark, the Netherlands to republics in Europe you'll see that on the whole they are much more peaceful and stable.

King-Emperor Edward VIII

Important to remember context in all of this. Back in the 1930s, there were no gas chambers or German troops marching across Europe. National socialism had undoubtedly brought stability to Germany in the same way we view modern day China or Russia: a brute government but one that has stabilised a previously weak state. Kign Edward VIII was not alone in early admiration for 1930s Germany - in any case, constitutional restraints on the king resulted in his abdication anyway which rather supports my case.

Except my point was if they were removed from their position, most people wouldn't care or even notice. All the Royal family provide for most people is a bit of gossip. Just look at Diana and how much gossip floats around her even to this day. And you know the moment they started to become active their popularity would decrease rapidly, like any (well, most) elected politicians.

You'll have to provide evidence for this. It isn't a burning constitutional issue, no, because the vast majority are happy with the status quo in the same way that voting reform doesn't appear in the top ten issues when people are polled. If you attempted to remove the monarchy though with say a referendum, I would guarantee an even more intense debate than we had over the European Union last summer. Like I said, Australia - on the other side of the world, a curious mix of the British and American constitutional systems and during the Windsor's least popular years - didn't even want to abolish the monarchy when all of the media and political class wanted to.

What we do know from polling is that the monarchy is key to our national identity and you only have to look at the crowds that turn up on royal events to see, as Lord Hurd put it a few years back, that the magic hasn't gone. The same crowds that were there to see King George VI on VE Day were there on the Queen's Golden Jubilee, her Diamond Jubilee, the Royal Wedding - even today Prince William visited my local area and huge crowds turned out. From our armed forces, to our flag, to our ceremonies, to our national anthem, to our post stamps, to our post boxes, telephone kiosks, national coat of arms, what we name our buildings and streets, our constitution, history, national celebrations, national times of mourning - everything is wrapped up in that of institution of The Crown.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/05/01/what-does-union-jack-mean-you/
http://www.natcen.ac.uk/blog/how-important-is-the-monarchy-to-british-people

For more than 30 years, NatCen’s British Social Attitudes survey has been asking the British public their views on the monarchy. The 2015 BSA report highlights important changes in attitudes towards the royal family.

First of all, regardless of when we asked, most people said having a monarchy was very important or important for the country. But the size of this majority has decreased significantly in the past 30 years. In 1983 more than four fifths of the population (86%) were in favour of the monarchy. This figure fell to 66% in 1994 and it remained stable until 2011. This period of lower consensus coincided with allegations of Prince Charles’ infidelity and his subsequent separation from Diana.

By 2011 the tide of public opinion rose again: the percentage of those who supported the monarchy reached 74% of the population. Indeed, this increase has been sustained and in 2015 almost three in four people (73%) remained in favour of the monarchy. This strong rise in support is likely to be due, in no small part, to the royal milestones that took place during this period, such as William and Kate’s wedding in 2011, the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012 and the birth of two Royal babies in 2013 and 2015. The high level of support in the early 1980s also followed a royal wedding and another royal baby: Prince William.

Don't confuse your own indifference to the House of Windsor to that of the public.

Huge crowds will turn out for the funeral of the Queen and the Coronations of Kings Charles, William and George.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGDujdUQNVg

Not quite sure why you assume any of this. First of all, at what point did I suggest Westminster Palace being removed? Secondly, you realise the government doesn't own any of those and I suspect would probably not take outright ownership under a "happy divorce"? I don't really understand why you're assuming they'd just be in the Queen's exact position but elected.

If they were not in the Queen's exact position then you're assuming a *huge* constitutional change that this country has never seen before - even when we had the English Civil War and overthrew the monarchy, Cromwell as Lord Protector basically assumed the institutions of the Crown rather than abolishing the structures of government as is what happened in France. Huge constitutional change is very un-British which is why we're still talking about Lords reform more than a hundred years after it first surfaced as an issue. There's no appetite for republicanism - or constitutional change - other than in the back pages of the Guardian newspaper.

I don't disagree, but for someone who talks about democracy a lot, this is a really shoddy point to make. If cost is an issue then let us just not bother with MPs to begin with. Let us never have referendums or any of that shite either.

I'm not the one making the case for a change - opponents of monarchy often bring up the cost factor (which does not bother me in the slightest as I think every penny is worth it and more) to which my question is exactly how they would bring down the costs when a President would likely cost the same or even more as in the case of the US President.

Unless they want to merge the Crown with the office of the Prime Minister (as many of them say when you say this) which in itself would Presidentialise the position of PM and concentrate a lot of power in the hands of one person.

Nice ignoring my point about Brexit, too, because you know it is true and your argument looks weak because of it.

If you really want to debate the silly point that this government is somehow fascist for copying and pasting existing EU law into the statute books then i'll happily do so in The Great Repeal Bill thread. :)

-:Undertaker:-

15-09-2017, 09:47 PM

Wanted to add on the video, from 7.40 onwards - doesn't look like an institution that is in any danger of people 'not caring'. :8

dbgtz

17-09-2017, 04:29 PM

Germany

Firstly in regards to Germany, President Hindenburg did sign into law Nazi doctrines along with appointing Hitler into government. But like you said, you've just done a Google search. If you knew the motives - Hindenburg ultimately had his hands constitutionally tied as the Preisdent and not the Chancellor, and his motive in appointing Hitler if my recollection serves me right was that he would be "shown up" in power.

If you read the history on the period though you will know that Hindenburg's presence was a great irritation to Hitler and certainly put brakes on his acquisition of power in Germany, hence the wait for Hindenburg to pass away. My argument simply is that quite possible, had Hindenburg been a monarch with an heir waiting in the wings then although possibly still toppled in the end, this would have led to more of a rebellion in Germany against Nazi rule.

The actions of King Haakon VII of Norway in refusing to collaborate with Nazi Germany along with Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands and King Christian X of Denmark inspired rebellion amongst the Norweigans, Danes and Dutch people - hence why Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark all remain kingdoms to this very day.

Italy

In terms of King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy, you'll notice I did not state that monarchy is an absolute guarantee against dictatorship. Of course it is not - sometimes monarchy (although rarely constitutional) can even be the cause of a dictatorship like modern day Saudi Arabia or Imperial Germany. But it is a constitutional defence nevertheless because if you compare the constitutional monarchies of Britain, Norway, Sweden, Belgium Denmark, the Netherlands to republics in Europe you'll see that on the whole they are much more peaceful and stable.

King-Emperor Edward VIII

Important to remember context in all of this. Back in the 1930s, there were no gas chambers or German troops marching across Europe. National socialism had undoubtedly brought stability to Germany in the same way we view modern day China or Russia: a brute government but one that has stabilised a previously weak state. Kign Edward VIII was not alone in early admiration for 1930s Germany - in any case, constitutional restraints on the king resulted in his abdication anyway which rather supports my case.

Just because stable nations have monarchies doesn't mean it's at all because they have monarchies. It really is such a farce of an argument you're making here.

You'll have to provide evidence for this. It isn't a burning constitutional issue, no, because the vast majority are happy with the status quo in the same way that voting reform doesn't appear in the top ten issues when people are polled. If you attempted to remove the monarchy though with say a referendum, I would guarantee an even more intense debate than we had over the European Union last summer. Like I said, Australia - on the other side of the world, a curious mix of the British and American constitutional systems and during the Windsor's least popular years - didn't even want to abolish the monarchy when all of the media and political class wanted to.

What we do know from polling is that the monarchy is key to our national identity and you only have to look at the crowds that turn up on royal events to see, as Lord Hurd put it a few years back, that the magic hasn't gone. The same crowds that were there to see King George VI on VE Day were there on the Queen's Golden Jubilee, her Diamond Jubilee, the Royal Wedding - even today Prince William visited my local area and huge crowds turned out. From our armed forces, to our flag, to our ceremonies, to our national anthem, to our post stamps, to our post boxes, telephone kiosks, national coat of arms, what we name our buildings and streets, our constitution, history, national celebrations, national times of mourning - everything is wrapped up in that of institution of The Crown.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/05/01/what-does-union-jack-mean-you/
http://www.natcen.ac.uk/blog/how-important-is-the-monarchy-to-british-people

Whilst I don't disagree with your point about the referendum, should the monarchy be removed without a referendum then I personally don't see many people actively campaigning for it back, or even feeling any difference in their life whatsoever. Personally, the only reason I see it even being an issue to be discussed is because people keep making it one along with stuff like fox hunting with dogs.

Don't confuse your own indifference to the House of Windsor to that of the public.

Huge crowds will turn out for the funeral of the Queen and the Coronations of Kings Charles, William and George.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGDujdUQNVg

If they were not in the Queen's exact position then you're assuming a *huge* constitutional change that this country has never seen before - even when we had the English Civil War and overthrew the monarchy, Cromwell as Lord Protector basically assumed the institutions of the Crown rather than abolishing the structures of government as is what happened in France. Huge constitutional change is very un-British which is why we're still talking about Lords reform more than a hundred years after it first surfaced as an issue. There's no appetite for republicanism - or constitutional change - other than in the back pages of the Guardian newspaper.

Funeral of the Queen? I don't disagree in the slightest. Typically, what I read from those who say they want a "UR", it is often followed by "after the Queen passes". I think there is a chance of a shake up of opinion when it's Charles/Williams turn.

On the HoL, it benefits the incumbent to keep it as is. I believe if you put it to a public vote, most would be in favour of some kind of reform including myself.
Having said that first point though, after a quick look up on HoL reform it suprisingly looks like it was the HoL voting against it being partially elected (which I agree with, but not surprising they would vote it down).

There's a twist, however: YouGov Profiles data shows that when asked, 63% of the public say the Lords should be mostly (22%) or entirely (41%) elected, while only 15% say it should be mostly (10%) or entirely appointed (5%).
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/01/fewer-politicians-house-lords/

Personally, I'm happy with an unelected chamber but just not in its current state.

I'm not the one making the case for a change - opponents of monarchy often bring up the cost factor (which does not bother me in the slightest as I think every penny is worth it and more) to which my question is exactly how they would bring down the costs when a President would likely cost the same or even more as in the case of the US President.

Unless they want to merge the Crown with the office of the Prime Minister (as many of them say when you say this) which in itself would Presidentialise the position of PM and concentrate a lot of power in the hands of one person.

I see no reason why a UK president would need anymore than a UK PM who gets a lot less in comparison to a US president. You could easily save costs by locating the UK president in Downing street.
On what planet would a UK president need more than a US? Especially with Trump and his golf weekends.

If you really want to debate the silly point that this government is somehow fascist for copying and pasting existing EU law into the statute books then i'll happily do so in The Great Repeal Bill thread. :)

I'm fairly sure I was on about it dividing the country.

-:Undertaker:-

17-09-2017, 07:46 PM

Just because stable nations have monarchies doesn't mean it's at all because they have monarchies. It really is such a farce of an argument you're making here.

How is it a farce to argue that countries which are constitutional monarchies often are the most stable because that prevents constant constitutional change and/or a dictator. The system of government a country has is key to whether a country is stable or not - the Westminster system for example has produced countless stable countries. France (the country most modern republics are based upon), since it first became a republic, is now on it's fifth republic since removing the House of Bourbon.

Spain, which has alternated between kingdom and republic for the last century or two is another example. In the 1970s the dictator General Franco died, and the heir to the (vacant) Spanish throne Juan Carlos I became King - Franco intended that the King continue his regime. Instead, Juan Carlos being in place helped transition the country back to a democracy and possibly prevented another Spanish civil war between monarchists and republicans.

One of the left wing leaders at the time proclaimed that "We are all royalists now!" after the actions of the King.

Whilst I don't disagree with your point about the referendum, should the monarchy be removed without a referendum then I personally don't see many people actively campaigning for it back, or even feeling any difference in their life whatsoever. Personally, the only reason I see it even being an issue to be discussed is because people keep making it one along with stuff like fox hunting with dogs.

Really? Monarchy is still debated in Russia a hundred years after it was abolished. The likes of Serbia, Romania and even Libya are also pondering whether restoring their royal houses. I mentioned Spain earlier, the issue of monarchy has played a huge role in Spanish politics for the past 150 years and still does to this day. The abdication of King-Emperor VIII in this country nearly spawned a new political party headed by Sir Winston Churchill over the cause.

Given all the polling I provided on the importance of monarch to people, as well as the identity issue, removal of the monarchy would become a huge issue as it was in Australia. Like the EU referendum, even more so actually, it is about identity. The removal of a key part of the British identity wouldn't be anything like fox hunting, don't be daft.

Funeral of the Queen? I don't disagree in the slightest. Typically, what I read from those who say they want a "UR", it is often followed by "after the Queen passes". I think there is a chance of a shake up of opinion when it's Charles/Williams turn.

Many republicans always argue this but I actually think the opposite, they're making a tactical mistake thinking that a change of sovereign will bring them good fortune in their republican cause. With nearly every succession to the throne, there's been speculation that the monarchy is finished - especially when a monarch who has been on the throne for so long dies (Death of Queen-Empress Victoria being the prime example). King-Emperor Edward VII lived through very politically turbulent times with the rise of socialism, universal suffrage, trade unions and militarism and he used to introduce the then-Prince of Wales (later King-Emperor George V) as "The last King of England" - as it turned out George V was one of the most popular monarchs even with a radical Labour Party.

When the Queen passes, attention will spin quite quickly - across the Commonwealth realms and world - to King Charles III and all the ceremony that comes with a change of reign. Those not dyed in the wool royalists will likely say "give him a chance" as we watch on with the Coronation and celebrations and the issue will once again be knocked off course. In time, he'll become the lovable grandfather figure that his mother currently is (monarchs tend to be at their most popular when they are young or very old).

Unless a King Charles III does a Charles I or a Cromwell and storms the HoC then I think he's pretty secure. :P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfHrMnl1uLo

On the HoL, it benefits the incumbent to keep it as is. I believe if you put it to a public vote, most would be in favour of some kind of reform including myself.

Having said that first point though, after a quick look up on HoL reform it suprisingly looks like it was the HoL voting against it being partially elected (which I agree with, but not surprising they would vote it down).

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/01/fewer-politicians-house-lords/

Personally, I'm happy with an unelected chamber but just not in its current state.

The argument against Lords reform, like against electoral reform a few years ago, hasn't been conducted in public - only really in academic circles and in the House of Lords itself. If we had a referendum on Lords reform, I would expect the public to not be interested in the issue at all and like with electoral reform, reject changes the dodgy politicians from the lower house are putting forward. If you look at the polling before and during the referendum on AV+ vs FPTP you'll see a similar situation: British people just do not like constitutional change.

I see no reason why a UK president would need anymore than a UK PM who gets a lot less in comparison to a US president. You could easily save costs by locating the UK president in Downing street.

A Head of State almost always earns more than a Head of Government given what the role is. And if moving the Presidency to Downing Street (itself controversial because Downing Street is de facto representative of the centre of our politics and government which the Head of State is not supposed to be) where would the Prime Minister then live along with the Chancellor?

On what planet would a UK president need more than a US? Especially with Trump and his golf weekends.

I don't mean the wage I mean the security costs etc.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!