So on the Av forums, there's talk about whether the Royal Wedding is a State event or if it isn't and whether William is Heir, an heir, or not an heir, etc.

I don't get any of it.

Also, suppose Charles died tomorrow. What would change?

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter): whether William is Heir, an heir, or not an heir, etc.

I thought it was pretty well known that he was next in line after his Father?   

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):

Prince William would be the next in line for the throne?   

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter): I don't get any of it.

I probably don't either.

Quoting ShyFlyer (Reply 1): I probably don't either.

It just goes to show that the USA doesn't have a monopoly on strange protocol and traditions. When it comes to pure weirdness of protocol, I think the British Royals take the cake.

BTW, did you know that the King of Spain has, as one of his styles, "King of Jerusalem"? I wonder if the Israelis know...

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2): It just goes to show that the USA doesn't have a monopoly on strange protocol and traditions. When it comes to pure weirdness of protocol, I think the British Royals take the cake.

I'm fairly sure it's the same protocol in all the various monarchies. There is only one current heir apparent / presumptive to any given throne, all others are merely a number in the line. And in the case of the British throne, that list is LONG - heck, just the other day a pair of twins was added at number 235 and 236 (though being 50/50 Australian, I think they might be more popular down under that most of the people ahead of them   ).

Quoting CPH-R (Reply 3): (though being 50/50 Australian, I think they might be more popular down under that most of the people ahead of them   ).

Same for the Danish Royals. :P

A little light reading to help you out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heir_apparent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heir_presumptive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_Throne

The Queen is still alive and well and I hope she will live until she is 122. I don't want to see Prince Charles becoming King.
William still has a while to wait.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2): BTW, did you know that the King of Spain has, as one of his styles, "King of Jerusalem"? I wonder if the Israelis know...

Isn't the King of Spain also King of France as he is a Borbon and is said to descend directly from Louis XVI?

Me thinks the monarchies are outdated. I wouldn't mind seeing them all become republics and Monaco going back to France.

The less protocol the better..

Prince Albert has cut off all the protocol that used to exist during his father's reign. He now goes everywhere on his own. He has two motorcyclists, a chauffeur and a bodyguard when he goes on official duty in Monaco. The rest of the time he is mostly on his own and driving his own car. This may change after the wedding I am not sure.

I am not sure if the Japanese Imperial family has much protocol round when they go out in public?

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 6): Isn't the King of Spain also King of France as he is a Borbon and is said to descend directly from Louis XVI?

That's right! Not too many Borbon's in power left. And let's not mention the French relatives, either. Yikes.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 6): Me thinks the monarchies are outdated. I wouldn't mind seeing them all become republics and Monaco going back to France.

Wow. Seriously? Aren't you Monegasque? I think that every country needs to chart its own course and not be subject to a royal family if it divides more than it unites, but some countries may be better as monarchies than republics. Thailand, for instance (and this is coming from the fiercest Australian republican you could ever meet!).

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 6): I am not sure if the Japanese Imperial family has much protocol round when they go out in public?

Are you serious?? The Japanese Imperial Household Agency controls every aspect of the Royals' lives!

Quoting CPH-R (Reply 3): Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2): It just goes to show that the USA doesn't have a monopoly on strange protocol and traditions. When it comes to pure weirdness of protocol, I think the British Royals take the cake. I'm fairly sure it's the same protocol in all the various monarchies. There is only one current heir apparent / presumptive to any given throne, all others are merely a number in the line. And in the case of the British throne, that list is LONG - heck, just the other day a pair of twins was added at number 235 and 236 (though being 50/50 Australian, I think they might be more popular down under that most of the people ahead of them ).

During the last thousand years or so there have been various wars lof succession in Europe, when it couldn´t be determined clearly who was going to follow a deceased monarch on the throne.
Even the hundred year war between England and France started as an argument between two branches of the same family about who should succeed a dead king who died without leaving a clear heir.
So societies learned and to prevent such wars from appearing they made clear lists of order of succession.
Obviously today, with the monarchs being just symbolic figureheads, these lists are somehow obsolete. Nobody will go on a war to support one prince or another, but when the monarchs still held real power, it was a different matter.

Jan

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 7): Aren't you Monegasque?

I wish... can you imagine... no taxes?
This is left to people with a lot of money (clean or unclean) who get their citizenship by decree directly from the Prince.

I have a French passport. French residents get zero privileges in Monaco. No tax cuts or anything else. Not USA citizens either. That's how it is. The British residents - and Italians - get all the advantages. Go figure...  

Monaco of today with Prince Albert isn't the same as when daddy Rainier was ruling.
http://www.eringer33.com/

Monaco can't do anything without France. So why not have them go back to France? Simple logic.

 

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2): When it comes to pure weirdness of protocol, I think the British Royals take the cake.

Indeed. I bet there is some protocol for dealing with farting in the presence of royalty.

Unfortunately the current mob doesn't seem to have mastered it:



Seems Her Majesty may have been put off her lunch, but Phil the Greek looks to be quite proud of himself.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 8): During the last thousand years or so there have been various wars of succession in Europe, when it couldn´t be determined clearly who was going to follow a deceased monarch on the throne.

I suppose they could have just had an election...

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 8): Obviously today, with the monarchs being just symbolic figureheads

This is why I don't see the point keeping them... and they cost taxpayers a lot of money.
Civil lists? Do we know how much taxpayers money go to them monarchs/families every year in the UK and elsewhere?

 

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 11): Do we know how much taxpayers money go to them monarchs/families every year in the UK and elsewhere?

In the UK it's less than £8million, so pennies per person per year.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 11): and they cost taxpayers a lot of money.

Compared to the trillion or so GBP to bail out various banks, the Royals are pocket fluff in comparison.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 9): I wish... can you imagine... no taxes?

I can. I lived in Monaco a few years back and know the situation well. That is one very well looked after group of people. But they'd reject outright any proposal to become a part of France (a country Monaco has never been a part of, of course....Unless you count 20 years after the French revolution.).

On the issue of the House of Grimaldi, for all intents and purposes, Albert is American - and the country is being run Presidential-style. His embrace of a suit and tie at state events is testament to this. He's an executive leader, so it's understandable, if not traditional!

The Monegasque Princely family is one of the few truly distinctive symbols the country has. You can point to them and say - they are Monegasque, something that would be hard to do without them. I shudder to think who many of the 'residents' (yourself excluded) would elect if given the opportunity to vote in a Monegasque republic. Putin?

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 9): Monaco can't do anything without France. So why not have them go back to France? Simple logic.

Monaco exists to continue an historic legacy but also as a legal and financial anomaly alongside places like Liechtenstein and San Marino. Legal quirks have value. Interesting company, these European microstates.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 13):

We are not off topic here as Monaco will have their own royal wedding in July - the Prince is getting married - and protocol is applied though much less complex as with the British royal family.

  

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 14): We are not off topic here as Monaco will have their own royal wedding in July

Hopefully it'll be a bit like the good old days in the Principality - with a bit of glamour on the rock, n'est-ce pas?

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 6): The Queen is still alive and well and I hope she will live until she is 122. I don't want to see Prince Charles becoming King.

Few people do. I personally like the man, but am under no illusions as to what his reign would do for the popularity of the monarchy as a whole. Regardless it is inevitable, but hard to interpret as anything other than a caretaker role in between Elizabeth and William - at least that way he and Kate can have some form of a free life together for a few years. Anyway, I get the feeling that after a few years of being King the novelty would start to wear off for Charles.


Dan  

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 16): Regardless it is inevitable,

What are the chances that HRM will abdicate to William, bypassing Charles? Can she direct that William succeed her in some type of will?

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 6): I am not sure if the Japanese Imperial family has much protocol round when they go out in public?

I think you'll find most of the Japanese Royal Family very rarely venture out in public, any time they do it's will be planned done to the last second. They have very little freedom compared to the British Royal Family.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 17): What are the chances that HRM will abdicate to William, bypassing Charles? Can she direct that William succeed her in some type of will?

Can't happen, Liz can't choose to bypass Chuck and give the crown to Willy. Willy will be king when Chuck dies or if he abducates in favour of Willy.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 6): I don't want to see Prince Charles becoming King.

Why ever not? He has all the necessary qualifications. He is the eldest son of the reigning monarch; has been invested as Prince of Wales; been trained all his life to take on the roll; he is on the Council of Regency and would likely become Prince Regent if HM were incapacitated. It is only right under the laws at present that he become King on his Mother's demise.

Monarchy is not a popularity contest where we pick the King on the basis of how charming he is or how he looks or whether he has a good sense of style. For all I know Charles may be a cad and a bounder; he may be a selfish egotist and an adulterer but those qualities, so common in the wider population, do not disqualify him from office.

His views on architecture and greenhouse gasses may not meet everyone's approval. He is entitled to his views but as he does not attend debates and vote in the House of Lords those views are his own and have no affect on policy. Once he becomes King he will rule "on the advice of His Ministers" - i.e. he will do as required by the Government of the day for he can only be King "by and with the consent of Parliament".

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 17): What are the chances that HRM will abdicate to William, bypassing Charles? Can she direct that William succeed her in some type of will?

It would require the approval of EVERY commonwealth realm in order for her to do that. That's a group as diverse as Canada, Tuvalu, and Belize. Not going to happen.

I waiting for the day when the Brits tell the royal family that this sh*t has gone on for too long and to get their asses out and get a job...... maybe?

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 21): I waiting for the day when the Brits tell the royal family that this sh*t has gone on for too long and to get their asses out and get a job...... maybe?

Given as how the two princes do have jobs...

Quoting Quokka (Reply 19): Charles may be a cad and a bounder; he may be a selfish egotist and an adulterer but those qualities, so common in the wider population, do not disqualify him from office.

They would also, if it were necessary, get him elected.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 17): What are the chances that HRM will abdicate to William, bypassing Charles? Can she direct that William succeed her in some type of will?

Can't happen. The succession is dictated by act of Parliament - the Act of Succession.

Quoting Quokka (Reply 19): Why ever not? He has all the necessary qualifications. He is the eldest son of the reigning monarch; has been invested as Prince of Wales; been trained all his life to take on the roll; he is on the Council of Regency and would likely become Prince Regent if HM were incapacitated. It is only right under the laws at present that he become King on his Mother's demise.

  

No one held out much hope for George VI - who stuttered - but he became a good and gracious king.

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 21): I waiting for the day when the Brits tell the royal family that this sh*t has gone on for too long and to get their asses out and get a job...... maybe?

Hopefully, I won't be around to see that happen. I much prefer that the UK head of state is NOT an elected politician.

President Thatcher? Not for me. President Major? Not for me, President Blair? Not for me.

President Gordon Brown? Tell me you jest.

mariner

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 21): I waiting for the day when the Brits tell the royal family that this sh*t has gone on for too long and to get their asses out and get a job...... maybe?

Why they hardly cost the taxpayer a penny, contrary to what some people here think they are very popular and a British institution. I doubt there is a person the Queens age who works as hard as she does.

BTW I don't think they have an easy life, I wouldn't trade mine in for theirs.

Quoting mariner (Reply 24): Hopefully, I won't be around to see that happen. I much prefer that the UK head of state is NOT an elected politician. President Thatcher? Not for me. President Major? Not for me, President Blair? Not for me. President Gordon Brown? Tell me you jest.

I love that. You're basically saying: "I do not want to be burdened with options".

Entirely possible to have an elected figurehead as head of state and still maintain the rest of the system. Republics do it all around the world, and it happens to be effective, sound, and most importantly democratic.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 25): BTW I don't think they have an easy life, I wouldn't trade mine in for theirs.

This attitude constantly baffles me. They don't have an easy life? Are you serious? They never have to worry about how to pay their electricity bill, they never have to stress about keeping their children fed, or where they'll get the money for the next mortgage payment. They're born into a position of influence and wealth. They are *not* to be pitied! And if they want out, they can. Edward VIII did it, and spent his years in a villa thankyouverymuch.

They spend their lives pursuing pet projects whether they be charitable, military, or sporting related and have the means to do so for the rest of their lives.

Support the monarchy by all means, but do not pity these people. People working in factories in China don't have an easy life, the royal family does.


QFF

Quoting mariner (Reply 24): Hopefully, I won't be around to see that happen. I much prefer that the UK head of state is NOT an elected politician. President Thatcher? Not for me. President Major? Not for me, President Blair? Not for me. President Gordon Brown? Tell me you jest.

Likewise. I'd like a head of state to be above politics. I don't have a high opinion of politicians, whose job it is to win popularity contests and will do or say anything to get re-elected, even if they don't really mean it. A politician as head of state? No thanks. There has to be some kind of accountability.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 26): This attitude constantly baffles me. They don't have an easy life? Are you serious? They never have to worry about how to pay their electricity bill, they never have to stress about keeping their children fed, or where they'll get the money for the next mortgage payment. They're born into a position of influence and wealth. They are *not* to be pitied! And if they want out, they can. Edward VIII did it, and spent his years in a villa thankyouverymuch. They spend their lives pursuing pet projects whether they be charitable, military, or sporting related and have the means to do so for the rest of their lives. Support the monarchy by all means, but do not pity these people. People working in factories in China don't have an easy life, the royal family does.

If you think they spend their days sitting on their arses doing absolutely nothing, then you're sadly mistaken. Granted, they don't have bills to pay, nor do they have to worry about their mortgage, since they own many properties in the UK. Official engagements take up most of their days, but they also live their life under a constant spotlight, anything they do or say will most likely be front page news the next day. Granted, charities can probably be a 'pet project' but certainly not military commitments. While it isn't law that every Royal has to serve in the military, when they do so they're treated the same as any other officer of the military. They follow the same rules as everyone else. Like everyone else, they can always quit the military if they find it's not for them, but it's almost traditional for them to play a part in defending the country that they may one day rule. Military service is never easy.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 27): Official engagements take up most of their days, but they also live their life under a constant spotlight, anything they do or say will most likely be front page news the next day.

Not at all true. How often does the Queen's trip to Bristol make headlines. If they say something incredibly stupid or do something incredibly stupid, then it will probably make headlines. But they live in tax-payer funded palaces, so I think it's a pretty fair deal.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 27): Granted, charities can probably be a 'pet project' but certainly not military commitments.

Let's clearly distinguish one thing from another here. Prince Harry serving in Afghanistan is a military commitment - without argument, Princess Anne as Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Australian Corps of Signals is a pet project.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 27): While it isn't law that every Royal has to serve in the military, when they do so they're treated the same as any other officer of the military.

No, they're not. Because they have a potentially significant constitutional role to fill and are part of the line of succession, they cannot possibly be treated exactly the same. Their safety must be assured at all times, and for that reason they are not exposed to the same dangers that brave non-royal servicepeople face. If they renounced their position in the line of succession, of course they'd be allowed to do whatever they wanted. Again - no tears from me regarding the poor royals.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 27): it's almost traditional for them to play a part in defending the country that they may one day rule.

I don't quite recall them defending us after Singapore, or for that matter.....ever?

QFF

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 22): Given as how the two princes do have jobs...

Not for much longer if the Tories have their way and cut the RAF Search and Rescue...

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 28): Their safety must be assured at all times, and for that reason they are not exposed to the same dangers that brave non-royal servicepeople face.

I guess Prince Harry's frontline service in Afghanistan doesn't count, then .... if it wasn't for some trash magazine breaking the news about Harry in Afghanistan, he may well still be there, risking his life alongside the soldiers that he commands.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 27): since they own many properties in the UK

Which they acquired using one of the most favored techniques used by organized crime, the protection racket. Get your crew started, fight against the neighboring crews, if you win they end up giving you a percent of what they earn for your "protection", repeat process. Instead of capos, lieutenants, and made men, we have earls, dukes and vassals. Both do their best to put on airs and wear fancy dress so they appear to be above the commoners, but in reality they are just hoodlums. At least in organized crime you can earn your way in, with the royalty it's all based on the accident of birth.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 30): I guess Prince Harry's frontline service in Afghanistan doesn't count, the

Way to selectively edit. Above that very paragraph, I wrote: "Prince Harry serving in Afghanistan is a military commitment - without argument..."

So I stand by what I said. He's not treated like any other soldier, because non-royal soldiers aren't taken off the front line when their names are published. And why was that action taken? Because if a member of the royal family serves on the front line, they become a specific target for the enemy, and that places every other service person in added danger.

I'm still baffled by the entire thing. He can't have his cake and eat it too. He cannot be a publicly subsidised celebrity, and still serve in combat. It's incompatible. But you try saying no to someone like that.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 11): This is why I don't see the point keeping them... and they cost taxpayers a lot of money. Civil lists? Do we know how much taxpayers money go to them monarchs/families every year in the UK and elsewhere?

Most recent figures put the cost of the Royal Family on, if memory serves, around 60 pence a year.

Much of the cost associated with the monarchy is upkeep on the Royal Palaces, and unless these were able to be converted to museums and able to sustain themselves (as the Tower of London, which is still legally a Royal Palace but is administered by a charitable trust that receives no taxpayer money, already does), most of this expense would still exist.

More importantly, if the monarchy was replaced by a republican head of state (elected or appointed), that head of state would incur much of the expense that the royal family does - official travel, a residence, public functions, receptions for visiting dignitaries, etc. And if the role of Head of State was combined with the Head of Government, the Prime Minister's office would simply incur the expense instead.

There's still this idea that a vast number of minor royals receive cash payments from the Civil List - this is simply not true, cash payments for minor royals were done away with decades ago. Only the monarch and the consort receive direct payments from the Civil List in their own right, although the monarch may in turn pay other royals for services performed (Prince Edward currently receives a salary from the Civil List, but as, effectively, an employee, not in any right of his own as a prince), although other royals may be reimbursed by the Royal Household or other government agencies for costs incurred for duties performed on behalf of the government or the Queen in her role as Head of State - for example, representing the UK at funerals of foreign dignitaries (customarily, the monarch does not do this).

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 21): I waiting for the day when the Brits tell the royal family that this sh*t has gone on for too long and to get their asses out and get a job...... maybe?

Actually, they have jobs, for the most part.

The Queen is Head of State, and performs official duties and appearances in that role, just as our President does. The UK, like most larger (and many smaller, for that matter) countries divides the roles of Head of State and Head of Government. In this sense, she performs a lot of ceremonial appearances that in the US are divided between the President and other officials (and, in some cases, even the First Lady).

Prince Charles doesn't receive any funding (other than reimbursement for expenses incurred in the line of official duties, usually representing the Queen) from the UK government, his income comes from rent received from land he owns as Duke of Cornwall.

Princes William and Harry both serve in the Armed Forces, both also are involved in extensive charity work. Prince Andrew, after a long career in the Navy, works for the UK's international trade and investment agency. As mentioned before, Prince Edward works for the Royal Household, in particularly running the Duke of Edinburgh's Award programme (Prince Philip is pretty old, after all). Princess Anne is active in the management of several charities (she's been president of Save the Children since 1970).

So really, other than Prince Philip (who's effectively retired), they all have "jobs". Now you can argue that some of these roles exist because the monarchy does, or that the royals get these jobs because of their positions in the Royal Family. But most of these roles would exist anyway - a British republic would still have a Head of State, armed forces, an international trade agency, and Save the Children would still have a president.

Their being royals may have helped them get these positions, but it's no different here...would George W. Bush have ever been, say, president of the Texas Rangers if his daddy hadn't been in politics? How many career military men get mid- to high-level positions in government after retiring?

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 26): I love that. You're basically saying: "I do not want to be burdened with options".

I take issue with the word "burdened."

The succession is known, it isn't a popularity contest. No one votes for the incumbent, so no one is disappointed that their candidate didn't win.

Mostly, I'm saying if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The English fought a long and sometimes bloody revolution before deciding on this form of governance.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 32): So I stand by what I said. He's not treated like any other soldier, because non-royal soldiers aren't taken off the front line when their names are published.

Oh, yes they are. Famously, Lawrence of Arabia was whisked out of Waziristan the moment it hit the headlines he was there and was (maybe) up to his old tricks again.

mariner

[Edited 2011-01-14 10:16:49]

Quoting mariner (Reply 34): No one votes for the incumbent, so no one is disappointed that their candidate didn't win.

That's the most ridiculous argument in favour of the monarchy I think I've ever heard. It sounds like something I would say in order to ridicule the beliefs of monarchists.

You're saying the system is good because nobody wins, and nobody can choose. Madness. Utter madness. Out with the vote, too?

Quoting mariner (Reply 34): Mostly, I'm saying if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Fine then. Horse and cart will get you from place to place. Abandon your use of cars. Start using an abacus instead of this computer too.

Honestly, if we adhered to 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' - then NOTHING would have improved...ever.

Quoting mariner (Reply 34): The English fought a long and sometimes bloody revolution before deciding on this form of governance.

Brilliant. We wouldn't want to upset any veterans of the English civil war, now would we?

Quoting mariner (Reply 34): Oh, yes they are. Famously, Lawrence of Arabia was whisked out of Waziristan the moment it hit the headlines he was there and was (maybe) up to his old tricks again.

Lawrence of Arabia? You're comparing Prince Harry to....Lawrence of Arabia?

Good lord above, next you'll be reciting: "I did but see her passing by..."

Soldiers are taken off the front line for many reasons, but birthright is a reason reserved exclusively for use with members of the royal family. They're not treated the same as other soldiers.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 35): Brilliant. We wouldn't want to upset any veterans of the English civil war, now would we?

The present system is written in their blood. I see no need to disparage what was fought for for 46 years.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 35): Lawrence of Arabia? You're comparing Prince Harry to....Lawrence of Arabia?

No. Just disproving what you claimed. A non-royal was removed from the war zone.

mariner

[Edited 2011-01-14 10:58:56]

Quoting mariner (Reply 36): The present system is written in their blood. I see no need to disparage what was fought for for 46 years.

To which particular war are you referring? Because the english civil war went on for a fraction of that time. Either way, wars of the past should not dictate the of system of government today.

Quoting mariner (Reply 36): No. Just disproving what you claimed. A non-royal was removed from the war zone.

You could have said that SAS soldiers whose names are published are removed from operational duty for security reasons, but even then your point would have been tenuous. People are removed from the battlefield all the time, but the combination of birthright and publicity is a motive reserved only for the royals. Royals on the battlefield are targets and put people in added danger. If Harry wants to serve, then he should renounce his title and claim to the throne. He can't have his cake and eat it too. The choice (and it is a choice) is his.

QFF

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 37): To which particular war are you referring? Because the english civil war went on for a fraction of that time.

I didn't mention the English Civil War, you did. I talked about the English Revolution.

That revolution started in 1642 with the First Civil War and ended in 1688 with the so-called Glorious Revolution, which led to the various Acts of Settlement and Succession and the English Bill of Rights, the basis of the present system.

Along the way it encompassed regicide, the Protectorate, the creation of an English Catholic saint, an attempt at dynastic (non-royal) succession, the restoration, the subsequent abdication of James II and the only successful invasion of England since the Norman conquest.

Why do you think it is called the "Act of Settlement"? Guess what it was settling.

It may be worth noting that Lord Protector Cromwell was offered (but declined) the Crown, which suggests that even many of those who fought against (Catholic) Charles I believed that the monarchy was the better system of governance than the republic.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 37): Either way, wars of the past should not dictate the of system of government today.

The American War of Independence and the French Revolution should not influence or dictate the way those countries are governed today?

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 37): If Harry wants to serve, then he should renounce his title and claim to the throne. He can't have his cake and eat it too. The choice (and it is a choice) is his.

Prince Andrew served in the Falklands without renouncing his title.

mariner

[Edited 2011-01-14 17:29:59]

The protocol for the Royal Wedding of Prince William is very specific and based on a long developed script. Some here in the USA see the differences as silly, but it make sense as to their system and showing respect to the current Queen and Prince Charles.

Mariner, the point of our discussion has become convoluted.

Your essay about the English revolution was based on a point that was supposed to substantiate the monarchy on the basis of bloodshed and respect for that bloodshed. I don't think that should be a consideration when discussing the merits of one system of government over the other.

Quoting mariner (Reply 38): The American War of Independence and the French Revolution should not influence or dictate the way those countries are governed today?

You have missed my point by an incalculable margin. Wars that contribute to the establishment of a system of government are clearly relevant to that system of government. When it comes to advocating for a new system of government, a discussion of the English civil war and the revolution is entirely irrelevant. Governance is primarily relevant to outcomes, and service to the people subject to that governance. Invoking the memory of a war that established a system of government shouldn't come into a discussion of the pros and cons. It's like suggesting that your father's childhood should have an impact on your choice of career. It's a foundation, yes, but it's not a decisive factor.

Monarchy is undemocratic, unrepresentative, and discriminatory.

Quoting mariner (Reply 38): Prince Andrew served in the Falklands without renouncing his title.

He was exposed to danger in that instance, and the decision wasn't without controversy. I doubt it would be repeated today. But let's get back to basics. This aspect of our discussion started when you suggested that royals in the military are treated the same as non-royals. And fundamentally, I disagree. That's not to cast dispersions on the earnestness of any particular royal, but it's a fact. They're not treated the same - they can't be. It's a matter of state security. Those who want to have their cake and eat it too, expose themselves and others to added dangers.

Taking things further back to basics, I stand by the point I originally made - that the royals should not be objects of pity. They've done well out of the countries their ancestors conquered.

QFF

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 40): Your essay about the English revolution was based on a point that was supposed to substantiate the monarchy on the basis of bloodshed and respect for that bloodshed. I don't think that should be a consideration when discussing the merits of one system of government over the other.

If you want to dismiss English history and how we have arrived at the present system, and all the checks and balances therein and complex laws relating to it, I shrug.

I will say that your dismissal of any point contrary to your own as "not relevant" or "missing the point" gets tedious.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 40): Monarchy is undemocratic, unrepresentative, and discriminatory.

It is entirely democratic. England is a Parliamentary democracy. The monarchy exists by will of the Parliament. If the majority of the Parliament decide against the monarchy, it is gone.

If the English want a presidential system in England, they can vote for it.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 40): This aspect of our discussion started when you suggested that royals in the military are treated the same as non-royals.

Please stop putting words in my mouth, I didn't say that. I disputed the following statement of yours:

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 32): He's not treated like any other soldier, because non-royal soldiers aren't taken off the front line when their names are published.

I gave an example of a non-royal serving man (AC/2 Shaw) who was whisked off the battlefield when his name was published. As with Prince Harry, it was done for political - not security - reasons.

mariner

[Edited 2011-01-15 10:24:05]

Quoting mariner (Reply 41): If the English want a presidential system in England, they can vote for it

It sounds almost easy. Firstly, whether the English decide something or not does not mean that the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland want the same thing. Do not confuse England with the United Kingdom. For example, while Scots may sit in the Parliament at Westminster, Scotland has its own Parliament and Scottish law is not the same as English law.

That aside, there is no notion of a referendum being an essential part of Constitutional change and no notion of the outcome of any referendum being binding on Parliament. Parliament may be supreme but that supremacy means that any law enacted may subsequently be amended or repealed by a subsequent Parliament. While in Australia the Constitution may only be changed by an act for a referendum, which must not only be passed by a majority of the voters but also a majority of the voters in a majority of the states, there is no similar requirement in the UK. A petition could be launched and submitted to Parliament but there is no requirement to accept the petition let alone act on it.

It is instructive to find that many recent changes have been brought by pressure from politicians rather than the general population. Changes to the composition of the House of Lords, changes to the law regarding the relinquishing of peerages, changes introducing a "peoples' charter" etc have come from within the system rather than any popular desire for change. This doesn't imply that everyone was happy with the way things were, but it may suggest that a lot of people think it doesn't make a lot of difference. As one wag put it, "it doesn't matter who you vote for, the Government still gets in."

Quoting Quokka (Reply 42): Do not confuse England with the United Kingdom.

That's why i have limited myself to about England and the English system.

Although there are some who claim that when Prince William becomes king, it means a return of the Scottish House of Stuart to the English throne, through his maternal line.

Quoting Quokka (Reply 42): It is instructive to find that many recent changes have been brought by pressure from politicians rather than the general population.

Not just recently, that's been true for centuries. Those who fought against Charles Stuart were "Parliamentarians" - politicians increasing their own power. LOL.

mariner

[Edited 2011-01-15 11:28:14]

Quoting mariner (Reply 41): If you want to dismiss English history and how we have arrived at the present system

I want to do no such thing. I treasure history! I just don't think the bloodshed that led to the establishment of the current system should in and of itself be the major reason for the continuation of the Monarchy, which is the reason you gave for the perpetuation of the system. There are legitimate and pragmatic arguments in favour of reform that trump respect for a war that happened hundreds of years ago.

Quoting mariner (Reply 41): It is entirely democratic.

You're not serious. Surely. 'Entirely democratic'?

Quoting mariner (Reply 41): The monarchy exists by will of the Parliament. If the majority of the Parliament decide against the monarchy, it is gone.

That's true, but that doesn't make the monarchy democratic. Not by a long shot. The head of state comes to that position through birthright, not democratic will. Telling me that elected people can remove the institution doesn't make it democratic. At all.

Quoting mariner (Reply 41): Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 40): This aspect of our discussion started when you suggested that royals in the military are treated the same as non-royals. Please stop putting words in my mouth, I didn't say that.

You did!!!!

Comment 32. I said: "He's not treated like any other soldier,"

To which you replied: 34. "Oh, yes they are"

Are you denying you said this???

Quoting mariner (Reply 41): I gave an example of a non-royal serving man (AC/2 Shaw) who was whisked off the battlefield when his name was published. As with Prince Harry, it was done for political - not security - reasons.

Prince Harry's removal was NOT for political reasons at all! It was entirely a security matter! Lawrence of Arabia was up to god know's what - galloping around the desert, his removal was entirely political - without question. But you're trying to button-hole this discussion into simply: "Are some non-royal soldiers removed from the battlefield sometimes". Yes! I'm not arguing they aren't, but royals have restrictions placed on their capacity to serve because of security reasons, which stems from the fact that they are born into a position of power, influence, and wealth. I stand by my argument.

This is getting convoluted. It might be better if we were to discuss the madness of this system of government in reference to our own countries. Because the most insane, un-democratic, and antiquated aspect of all of this is the notion of a 'Governor-General'. Even in PNG, parliament votes for theirs. I never thought I'd see the day when PNG leads Australia and New Zealand on the road to democracy. But here we are.

QFF

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 44): I want to do no such thing. I treasure history! I just don't think the bloodshed that led to the establishment of the current system should in and of itself be the major reason for the continuation of the Monarchy, which is the reason you gave for the perpetuation of the system.

I didn't give it as the "major" reason. I gave it as one of the reasons. I thought I had explained that England had had a forty six year revolution to achieve the present system, and it involved a deal more than bloodshed.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 44): You're not serious. Surely. 'Entirely democratic'?

Having flirted with a Republic, the Parliament has decided on this system. It is a democratic decision. Spain made a similar choice.

The system can be ended by Parliament, or even by the simple will of the people. Australia had a referendum on the matter.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 44): To which you replied: 34. "Oh, yes they are"

Ah, selective quoting. "Oh, yes they are - non-royal soldiers (or service people) have been removed from the front line when their identities became known." I gave you an example.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 44): Prince Harry's removal was NOT for political reasons at all! It was entirely a security matter!

Sure, it was political. If there had been another "spare" Prince Harry might have served his time in Afghanistan, as Prince Andrew did in the Falklands.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 44): It might be better if we were to discuss the madness of this system of government in reference to our own countries.

Why would it be better? How far off-topic do you want to go? This thread is supposed to be about Protocol and the Royal Wedding.

I have no idea what the rights or wrongs of Australia's system of governance have to do with that, but I would remind you, again, that Australia had a referendum on the matter.

mariner

[Edited 2011-01-15 16:43:41]

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 35): That's the most ridiculous argument in favour of the monarchy I think I've ever heard. It sounds like something I would say in order to ridicule the beliefs of monarchists.

Likewise, I have never seen any convincing argument from the republican side as to why the system must change. Since it is the republicans that want to change from the status quo, I submit that it is the republicans that has the onus to prove why republicanism is the better system. The republic debate has been done and defeated, so how many times does the Australian people as a whole need to say 'no'?

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 40): Monarchy is undemocratic, unrepresentative, and discriminatory.

Are you also trying to say that as a Constitutional Monarchy, Australia is undemocratic, unrepresentative and discriminatory? The Sovereign no longer has any real power over the UK, let alone Australia. Australia is run by its parliament, just like the UK is run by its parliament. Whatever role the Sovereign has is symbolic. Tell me, how is it undemocratic to have a democratically elected leader as the head of the Government (as opposed to head of State, which, in Australia's case, is Ms Quentin Bryce)? Why is there a need to change?

Quoting mariner (Reply 45): Australia had a referendum on the matter.

  

The Australian people as a whole have spoken. Their answer is 'no' to a republic. I will continue to vote 'no' to any future referendum on a republic in this country. Having a politician as a head of state is an untenable situation. The head of state must be someone above politics, someone to whom the government is accountable.

Quoting mariner (Reply 45): I didn't give it as the "major" reason.

I'm sorry, but you did. There was no caveat, you stressed blood shed as the reason the monarchy must be continued.

Quoting mariner (Reply 45): Having flirted with a Republic, the Parliament has decided on this system.

To which parliament are you referring? And why should a decision taken once in the parliament never be reviewed let alone repealed? Why have a parliament at all?

Quoting mariner (Reply 45): The system can be ended by Parliament, or even by the simple will of the people.

There's nothing simple about changing the system of government, as you well know. You can't trivialise the process of constitutional reform to make monarchy appear more democratic, or democratic at all.

Quoting mariner (Reply 45): Ah, selective quoting. "Oh, yes they are - non-royal soldiers (or service people) have been removed from the front line when their identities became known." I gave you an example.

Absolutely not selective quoting at all, just pertinent. I am not denying that some soldiers are removed from the battlefield on occasion. Not one bit am I denying that. However, removed on the basis of birthright is a reason reserved for the royals - and that is a distinction that isn't shared with non-royal service personnel. They are not treated the same, and I stand by that.

Quoting mariner (Reply 45): Sure, it was political. If there had been another "spare" Prince Harry might have served his time in Afghanistan, as Prince Andrew did in the Falklands.

That's something you're just speculating on. There are no facts in support of that.

Quoting mariner (Reply 45): Why would it be better? How far off-topic do you want to go? This thread is supposed to be about Protocol and the Royal Wedding.

On this we agree. Thank you for a thought provoking discussion, Mariner. I think we've stated our differences clearly, and if I could - I'd shake your hand and continue it over a beer.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 46): Likewise, I have never seen any convincing argument from the republican side as to why the system must change.

Then you clearly haven't been looking very hard.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 46): The republic debate has been done and defeated

The republic debate has been going on for over 150 years, and won't go away until it's been finally resolved in the affirmative.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 46): so how many times does the Australian people as a whole need to say 'no'?

As many times as it takes until the Australian people are presented with a referendum for a system of government to which they agree.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 46): Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 40): Monarchy is undemocratic, unrepresentative, and discriminatory. Are you also trying to say that as a Constitutional Monarchy, Australia is undemocratic, unrepresentative and discriminatory?

Read my quote again. Ask yourself what I'm talking about - because I'm being reeeeally specific.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 46): The Sovereign no longer has any real power over the UK, let alone Australia.

'Let alone Australia' - you say that as if the tyrrany of distance somehow dilutes constitutional power. She has MORE power in Australia than she does in the UK, thanks to a distinct lack of the wretched 'convention' that so defines the British system of government. Just ask any constitutional lawyer worth his/her salt.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 46): Tell me, how is it undemocratic to have a democratically elected leader as the head of the Government (as opposed to head of State, which, in Australia's case, is Ms Quentin Bryce)?

Oh, this is an oldie but a goodie. The Governor-General is not Australia's head of state, no matter how many times you may wish to tell yourself that. She's identified as the Queen's representative in Australia. Australia's head of state is the Queen of Australia - Elizabeth II.

If you don't believe me, read this: http://www.dfat.gov.au/protocol/protocol_guidelines/15.html#152

Section 15.1, first sentence...

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 46): Why is there a need to change?

Because change brings with it the potential for improvement. If it was left to you, we'd be 6 separate British colonies. Thank goodness the founding fathers had more foresight.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 46): The Australian people as a whole have spoken. Their answer is 'no' to a republic.

This is not North Korea - decisions are not definitive and unanimous, they are in a state of evolution and debate. That's how we operate. The debate that started in the 1800s with the anti-transportation league continues today, because Australia should have an Australian as head of state.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 46): I will continue to vote 'no' to any future referendum on a republic in this country.

Then you're a tool of a foreign monarchy, and you've deserted your civic duty to your country by not even contemplating constitutional reform. Enjoy.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 46): Having a politician as a head of state is an untenable situation.

Who said anything about it having to be a politician?

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 46): The head of state must be someone above politics, someone to whom the government is accountable.

There, we half-agree. The head of state must be above day to day politics, but the government should not be accountable to them. The government, the head of state, and the entire political system needs to be formally subject to the Australian people - with whom sovereign power *should* be held. That's the nature of republicanism.

QFF

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 26): This attitude constantly baffles me. They don't have an easy life? Are you serious?

Life in a goldfish bowl, that would be fun, no thanks I'll stick with my current life and mortgage.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 47): That's something you're just speculating on. There are no facts in support of that.

There was a spare had Andrew died on active service in the Falklands, or had you forgotten about Edward?

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 47): The republic debate has been going on for over 150 years, and won't go away until it's been finally resolved in the affirmative.

I'm no royalist, but as it currently stands the system used in NZ, Canada and Australia works well, until someone can give me a reason why becoming a republic is going to make my country, better, richer and a more desirable place to live I'll stick with the system we have.

It's bad enough having the royal family in the UK...but to have a bunch of former colonials argue about the vitues of being ruled absolutely by a monarch living on the other side of the world it frankly bizarre.