Barbados has officially removed Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state and become the world's newest republic.

In an overnight ceremony in the capital, Bridgetown, Dame Sandra Mason was sworn in as president.

The Prince of Wales and Barbadian singer Rihanna attended the event, which coincided with the country's 55th anniversary of independence.

Link

Congrats to Barbados on becoming a republic. The antiquated system of Royalty does not have a place in modern society.

Dutchy wrote:

Barbados has officially removed Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state and become the world's newest republic.

In an overnight ceremony in the capital, Bridgetown, Dame Sandra Mason was sworn in as president.

The Prince of Wales and Barbadian singer Rihanna attended the event, which coincided with the country's 55th anniversary of independence.

Link


Congrats to Barbados on becoming a republic.

Yes happy for them that is what they have chosen

Dutchy wrote:

The antiquated system of Royalty does not have a place in modern society.

That is your own personal opinion and not one shared by all

I for one am quite happy to remain in a constitutional monarchy

A101 wrote:

I for one am quite happy to remain in a constitutional monarchy

Curious what you see as the benefits to you, a regular citizen, having a litany of people on a very luxurious welfare account?

Aaron747 wrote:

A101 wrote:

I for one am quite happy to remain in a constitutional monarchy

Curious what you see as the benefits to you, a regular citizen, having a litany of people on a very luxurious welfare account?

historical reflection and do not really see the need to change

Aaron747 wrote:

A101 wrote:

I for one am quite happy to remain in a constitutional monarchy

Curious what you see as the benefits to you, a regular citizen, having a litany of people on a very luxurious welfare account?

Someone that represents everyone regardless of political affiliation.

Presidents are just politcians with everything that includes of bad things.

Presidents are not cheaper.

Dutchy wrote:

Barbados has officially removed Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state and become the world's newest republic.

In an overnight ceremony in the capital, Bridgetown, Dame Sandra Mason was sworn in as president.

The Prince of Wales and Barbadian singer Rihanna attended the event, which coincided with the country's 55th anniversary of independence.

Link

Congrats to Barbados on becoming a republic. The antiquated system of Royalty does not have a place in modern society.

Don't really see the benefit for Barbados to get a president and remove itself from the British crown, economically or politically.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Barbados has officially removed Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state and become the world's newest republic.

In an overnight ceremony in the capital, Bridgetown, Dame Sandra Mason was sworn in as president.

The Prince of Wales and Barbadian singer Rihanna attended the event, which coincided with the country's 55th anniversary of independence.

Link


Congrats to Barbados on becoming a republic.

Yes happy for them that is what they have chosen

Dutchy wrote:

The antiquated system of Royalty does not have a place in modern society.

That is your own personal opinion and not one shared by all

I for one am quite happy to remain in a constitutional monarchy

Living in a monarchy myself, I hate the idea of someone born into royalty and are above the law purely by coincidence. The same law which applies to everyone else. It's archaic and it doesn't serve any real purpose in a modern society. I'd prefer a democratically elected president.

AirPacific747 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Link


Congrats to Barbados on becoming a republic.

Yes happy for them that is what they have chosen

Dutchy wrote:

The antiquated system of Royalty does not have a place in modern society.

That is your own personal opinion and not one shared by all

I for one am quite happy to remain in a constitutional monarchy

Living in a monarchy myself, I hate the idea of someone born into royalty and are above the law purely by coincidence. The same law which applies to everyone else. It's archaic and it doesn't serve any real purpose in a modern society. I'd prefer a democratically elected president.

But does the same law apply to for instance the US president as it does for ordenary people ? Lets be honest, not really.

Mortyman wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yes happy for them that is what they have chosen



That is your own personal opinion and not one shared by all

I for one am quite happy to remain in a constitutional monarchy

Living in a monarchy myself, I hate the idea of someone born into royalty and are above the law purely by coincidence. The same law which applies to everyone else. It's archaic and it doesn't serve any real purpose in a modern society. I'd prefer a democratically elected president.

But does the same law apply to for instance the US president as it does for ordenary people ? Lets be honest, not really.

It should, though.

Was born and spent most of my life in one monarchy and now living in another. Both do more for their subjects than many outsiders (and insiders for that matter) might imagine and possibly cost less than you think when you take into account tourism and other incomes.

I can see why some might be dismissive, but to do so without realising how hard some of them work would be a mistake. No way I would trade places.

Back to the main point, if this is what Barbados wants for their future then good for them.

Mortyman wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yes happy for them that is what they have chosen



That is your own personal opinion and not one shared by all

I for one am quite happy to remain in a constitutional monarchy

Living in a monarchy myself, I hate the idea of someone born into royalty and are above the law purely by coincidence. The same law which applies to everyone else. It's archaic and it doesn't serve any real purpose in a modern society. I'd prefer a democratically elected president.

But does the same law apply to for instance the US president as it does for ordenary people ? Lets be honest, not really.

Presidency is not transmitted by birth. That's the big issue.

Aaron747 wrote:

A101 wrote:

I for one am quite happy to remain in a constitutional monarchy

Curious what you see as the benefits to you, a regular citizen, having a litany of people on a very luxurious welfare account?

How is that any different to the luxurious lifestyles afforded to most Presidents and there families around the world? New Zealand's Royal Family consists of one person, who we only fund when she comes to NZ, her representative in NZ the Governor General is fairly cheap. In Norway the Royal family was slimmed down a while back, it only consists of the King, his wife, and the Crown Prince and his family.

I like having a head of state who is not political and above the dirty taint of politics.

JJJ wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

Living in a monarchy myself, I hate the idea of someone born into royalty and are above the law purely by coincidence. The same law which applies to everyone else. It's archaic and it doesn't serve any real purpose in a modern society. I'd prefer a democratically elected president.

But does the same law apply to for instance the US president as it does for ordenary people ? Lets be honest, not really.

Presidency is not transmitted by birth. That's the big issue.

Yup and countries still get it wrong, look at 3 of the last 4 US presidents, one idiot and two senile old men of limited capacity.

AirPacific747 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Link


Congrats to Barbados on becoming a republic.

Yes happy for them that is what they have chosen

Dutchy wrote:

The antiquated system of Royalty does not have a place in modern society.

That is your own personal opinion and not one shared by all

I for one am quite happy to remain in a constitutional monarchy

Living in a monarchy myself, I hate the idea of someone born into royalty and are above the law purely by coincidence. The same law which applies to everyone else. It's archaic and it doesn't serve any real purpose in a modern society. I'd prefer a democratically elected president.

That's only one person who is above the law, and that's only because the laws are made in her name, her family aren't. I doubt the Queen of NZ has ever been in NZ long enough to break any laws, in an every day sense her being above the law is irrelevant. I'd hate to think what kind of moron we would elect to become President of NZ, or the way things are going now they would likely be appointed by Maori.

Dutchy wrote:

Barbados has officially removed Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state and become the world's newest republic.

In an overnight ceremony in the capital, Bridgetown, Dame Sandra Mason was sworn in as president.

The Prince of Wales and Barbadian singer Rihanna attended the event, which coincided with the country's 55th anniversary of independence.

Link

Congrats to Barbados on becoming a republic. The antiquated system of Royalty does not have a place in modern society.

Of course not. We would all like the modern presidential-style system, as practiced in China, Russia, Venezuela, Zimbabwe and similar countries.

Kiwirob wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yes happy for them that is what they have chosen



That is your own personal opinion and not one shared by all

I for one am quite happy to remain in a constitutional monarchy

Living in a monarchy myself, I hate the idea of someone born into royalty and are above the law purely by coincidence. The same law which applies to everyone else. It's archaic and it doesn't serve any real purpose in a modern society. I'd prefer a democratically elected president.

That's only one person who is above the law, and that's only because the laws are made in her name, her family aren't. I doubt the Queen of NZ has ever been in NZ long enough to break any laws, in an every day sense her being above the law is irrelevant. I'd hate to think what kind of moron we would elect to become President of NZ, or the way things are going now they would likely be appointed by Maori.

Yep 100% correct under the British sovereign system the Queen or future King is above the law,

The Royal family can be prosecuted as the Princess Royal, Princess Anne was the first royal family member to plead guilty to an offence. She received a fine of £500 and was made to pay compensation after pleading guilty when one of her dogs attacked children in 2002.The year prior she was fined £400 for speeding in her Bentley in Gloucestershire.

Kiwirob wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

A101 wrote:

I for one am quite happy to remain in a constitutional monarchy

Curious what you see as the benefits to you, a regular citizen, having a litany of people on a very luxurious welfare account?

How is that any different to the luxurious lifestyles afforded to most Presidents and there families around the world? New Zealand's Royal Family consists of one person, who we only fund when she comes to NZ, her representative in NZ the Governor General is fairly cheap. In Norway the Royal family was slimmed down a while back, it only consists of the King, his wife, and the Crown Prince and his family.

I like having a head of state who is not political and above the dirty taint of politics.

Hardly luxurious by comparison - there's no guaranteed lifetime of luxury and the US POTUS draws a salary of $400K. The perks don't really come until post-presidency speaking fees kick in. Still laughable by CEO standards.

Kiwirob wrote:

I like having a head of state who is not political and above the dirty taint of politics.

Well, there's always Randy Andy, who found his own "dirty taint".

I kinda like the idea of a head of state…a ceremonial leader who, while not ‘of the People’ nor representing the will of the People, represents the People.

The head of government does the dirty work, the head of state sits above it all and does the hand-waving.

fr8mech wrote:

I kinda like the idea of a head of state…a ceremonial leader who, while not ‘of the People’ nor representing the will of the People, represents the People.

The head of government does the dirty work, the head of state sits above it all and does the hand-waving.

Sure, that can be a president as demonstrated in Germany, Israel or Austria for example.

Mortyman wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Someone that represents everyone regardless of political affiliation.

Presidents are just politcians with everything that includes of bad things.

Presidents are not cheaper.

Point 1. sure, that doesn't need to be an official by birth.

Point 2. and the good things. And a monarch can be quite the idiot but no way to get rid of them

Point 3. might well be or not, don't know, I know that the monarchy in the Netherlands is costing the taxpayers an estimated 300miljion euros per year. I do feel that a precedency will be a lot cheaper, but that is not the main point. A monarchy is undemocratic and frankly not fair for the family themselves. I wouldnot trade with them for the world.

Dutchy wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Someone that represents everyone regardless of political affiliation.

Presidents are just politcians with everything that includes of bad things.

Presidents are not cheaper.

Point 1. sure, that doesn't need to be an official by birth.

Point 2. and the good things. And a monarch can be quite the idiot but no way to get rid of them

Point 3. might well be or not, don't know, I know that the monarchy in the Netherlands is costing the taxpayers an estimated 300miljion euros per year. I do feel that a precedency will be a lot cheaper, but that is not the main point. A monarchy is undemocratic and frankly not fair for the family themselves. I wouldnot trade with them for the world.

Haven’t been able to get rid of the Jong-un’s either

Aaron747 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Curious what you see as the benefits to you, a regular citizen, having a litany of people on a very luxurious welfare account?

How is that any different to the luxurious lifestyles afforded to most Presidents and there families around the world? New Zealand's Royal Family consists of one person, who we only fund when she comes to NZ, her representative in NZ the Governor General is fairly cheap. In Norway the Royal family was slimmed down a while back, it only consists of the King, his wife, and the Crown Prince and his family.

I like having a head of state who is not political and above the dirty taint of politics.

Hardly luxurious by comparison - there's no guaranteed lifetime of luxury and the US POTUS draws a salary of $400K. The perks don't really come until post-presidency speaking fees kick in. Still laughable by CEO standards.

There are quite a few presidents for life in the world.

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I like having a head of state who is not political and above the dirty taint of politics.

Well, there's always Randy Andy, who found his own "dirty taint".

He’s absolutely irrelevant, he’s well down the line of succession and when Chuck becomes king and slims down the family to the monarch and there heir he won’t be a part of anything.

Mortyman wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Barbados has officially removed Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state and become the world's newest republic.

In an overnight ceremony in the capital, Bridgetown, Dame Sandra Mason was sworn in as president.

The Prince of Wales and Barbadian singer Rihanna attended the event, which coincided with the country's 55th anniversary of independence.

Link

Congrats to Barbados on becoming a republic. The antiquated system of Royalty does not have a place in modern society.

Don't really see the benefit for Barbados to get a president and remove itself from the British crown, economically or politically.

Sovereignty ?

On top of not liking royalty by virtue of being French (all good kings/queens have their head separated from their bodies), it makes even less sense for all the countries (bar the UK) where the Queen/King is basically never there and has nothing to do with the people living there. Having God as head of state would make about as much sense (said as an atheist...).

I suspect that with Barbados its population, mainly of persons of African heritage, has long seen the Queen (or any King) as a symbol of colonialism, especially its history of slavery. They will continue as part of the UK Commonwealth with its economic ties.

Aesma wrote:

On top of not liking royalty by virtue of being French (all good kings/queens have their head separated from their bodies), it makes even less sense for all the countries (bar the UK) where the Queen/King is basically never there and has nothing to do with the people living there. Having God as head of state would make about as much sense (said as an atheist...).

Eh…even republican countries expend substantial tax-payer resources on pomp and prestigious symbols of their national identities that serve no practical purpose, purely emotional. Monarchy is just one flavor of that. I don’t see anything inherently better/different in tangible terms about the French république compared to the current British monarchy.

I am a republican in principle, but see that our royal family of Norway have served our country well. They have been a moderating force against political extremism. Our then king (alledgedly) declared «I am also a king serving the communists» thus making any thought of revolution moot when we got our first left wing (then still communist) government in the 20’s. That is elegance. By virtue of pure decency the royal family helped making sure we landed firmly and without ambiguity on the right side during WWII. We currently have a king, King Harald V, that as a refugee child together with his mother was a private guest of, and remembers well the FDR white house during that war, he ties all that history seemlesly into the current issues surrounding migrants and refugees. He holds heartwarming grandfatherly speeches that unite the nation, including all but the most outrageously evil right wing trolls. His family has included several crazies and crackpots, but instead of scandal they have always managed to turn it into narratives of inclusiveness and human warmth.
They currently make a strong case for monarchy, and judging from the current heir(s), I am quite sure the monarchy in this country will outlive at least me.

But in principle it is still all wrong, of course;-)

Aesma wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Link

Congrats to Barbados on becoming a republic. The antiquated system of Royalty does not have a place in modern society.

Don't really see the benefit for Barbados to get a president and remove itself from the British crown, economically or politically.

Sovereignty ?

It was all ready a fully independent nation, its no different to when Australia had a vote on becoming a republic. which was not successful BTW

In fact Barbados(1966)was fully independent before Australia (1986)

AirPacific747 wrote:

Living in a monarchy myself, I hate the idea of someone born into royalty and are above the law purely by coincidence. The same law which applies to everyone else. It's archaic and it doesn't serve any real purpose in a modern society. I'd prefer a democratically elected president.

In the US, we've had three multi-generational national political families in my lifetime (the Kennedys, the Clintons and the Bushes.) If you include the Senate, the list gets longer.

Even in a Republic like the US, its easy to create royalty-like entrenched political power, especially with a hyper-self actualized bureaucracy that views itself as an extension of politics and a legislative body that isn't terribly enamored of its budgetary and bureaucratic oversight duties.

ltbewr wrote:

I suspect that with Barbados its population, mainly of persons of African heritage, has long seen the Queen (or any King) as a symbol of colonialism, especially its history of slavery. They will continue as part of the UK Commonwealth with its economic ties.

That's somewhat ahistorical, considering the Royal Navy's anti-slavery efforts and those of anti-slavery civil society in the UK, generally on humanitarian vs. political grounds.

FlapOperator wrote:

... a legislative body that isn't terribly enamored of its budgetary and bureaucratic oversight duties.

Get rid of lobbying and make all campaigns have to draw out of one pool of public funds - only the best ideas and messaging will prevail.

Legally, there are some political elements that make sharing a sovereign in the person of the Queen valuable in a military, political and legal context, and that isn't replicated by Commonwealth membership. Considering the current Queen's well-demonstrated desire to stay out of domestic political concerns, and that likely no changing with any successor, I think the costs of a monarchy for small nations will actually be in excess of the illusionary gains of "independence."

Aaron747 wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

... a legislative body that isn't terribly enamored of its budgetary and bureaucratic oversight duties.

Get rid of lobbying and make all campaigns have to draw out of one pool of public funds - only the best ideas and messaging will prevail.

Perhaps, but then you'd have the book deals, speaking engagements, board memberships and benefits of insider trading (Pelosi's famous 1100% return on her Congressional salary just one case among hundreds across the political spectrum.)

One can make the case that lobbying as it exists is the best documented and transparent ways that Congress is bought. I can easily look up what Senator Schmuckatelli or Congressmen Bagadonuts received from a corporation, Super PAC or individual donor.

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I like having a head of state who is not political and above the dirty taint of politics.

Well, there's always Randy Andy, who found his own "dirty taint".

He’s absolutely irrelevant, he’s well down the line of succession and when Chuck becomes king and slims down the family to the monarch and there heir he won’t be a part of anything.

Since his chances of ever being monarch dwindle even more, day by day, maybe he should go out and get a job?

LCDFlight wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

A101 wrote:

I for one am quite happy to remain in a constitutional monarchy

Curious what you see as the benefits to you, a regular citizen, having a litany of people on a very luxurious welfare account?

I’ll bite. There are some forms of government far more corrupt and far less effective than the British one. A particular strength of royal families is extremely long planning horizons. While US politicians look ahead 4-8 years at the most, Royal families plan in terms of half centuries and full centuries.

The Royal family doesn't have much, if anything to do with planning. They are mere figureheads.

flyguy89 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

On top of not liking royalty by virtue of being French (all good kings/queens have their head separated from their bodies), it makes even less sense for all the countries (bar the UK) where the Queen/King is basically never there and has nothing to do with the people living there. Having God as head of state would make about as much sense (said as an atheist...).

Eh…even republican countries expend substantial tax-payer resources on pomp and prestigious symbols of their national identities that serve no practical purpose, purely emotional. Monarchy is just one flavor of that. I don’t see anything inherently better/different in tangible terms about the French république compared to the current British monarchy.

I have no problem with the spending in my country (which could even be increased I find, not on the president but for example on the Elysée Palace, every time something is done there it's a mini scandal). The spending on the US president (the army of vehicles that precede and follow him everywhere) is a bit ridiculous and I would feel uncomfortable having to foot that bill. I think it's an exception in advanced democracies, though.

The difference with similar (or not so similar) amounts spent on monarchs is that you or I can become French president (yes, even if you're not French now, you can become one and get elected president one day), that the choice is up to other French citizens, and that can only last for a time. Monarchy is forever.

About the UK monarchy, while it is staying out of politics (rendering it useless, not taming the current PM for example), it is making sure it keeps its wealth, land, and privileges.

Another issue with the UK monarchy is the state religion, of course.

Aesma wrote:

The spending on the US president (the army of vehicles that precede and follow him everywhere) is a bit ridiculous and I would feel uncomfortable having to foot that bill. I think it's an exception in advanced democracies, though.

Maybe he needs the bigger entourage because he has more threats directed at him? Nice "advanced democracies" dig, though.

Aesma wrote:

The difference with similar (or not so similar) amounts spent on monarchs is that you or I can become French president (yes, even if you're not French now, you can become one and get elected president one day), that the choice is up to other French citizens, and that can only last for a time. Monarchy is forever.

What practical difference does that make? And if the head-of-state is a figurehead, who cares whether or not they’re elected vs. a member of dynasty with binding national ties? You’re still elevating a person to a station of unearned privilege in the service of “decorating” the state. Nations certainly have a right to self-determination, but if a people want to have a ceremonial unelected head-of-state in the form of a constitutional monarchy, I really don’t see that as some drastic deviation from the mean.

Arena wrote:

About the UK monarchy, while it is staying out of politics (rendering it useless, not taming the current PM for example), it is making sure it keeps its wealth, land, and privileges.

Certainly, but my understanding is that, often unlike politicians in some countries, their independent wealth results in direct tax payer expenditures on the royal family being quite minimal.

johns624 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The spending on the US president (the army of vehicles that precede and follow him everywhere) is a bit ridiculous and I would feel uncomfortable having to foot that bill. I think it's an exception in advanced democracies, though.

Maybe he needs the bigger entourage because he has more threats directed at him? Nice "advanced democracies" dig, though.

More threats than the Chinese president ? Is brute force the right way to manage these threats ?

I didn't mean it as a dig, I meant to exclude non democracies where the leader steals/owns most of the wealth of the country, and thus can afford to fly his harem in another 4 holer, things like that. Well maybe it's a dig anyway.

Welcome Barbados to a republican form of government, though it's not much different than how it's been: still have a figurehead who "leads the state" with a more powerful figure leading the government. Only difference is that the head of state is elected (indirectly by parliament). For regular Barbadians, nothing changed except parliament now has one more duty to carry out.

I wonder if other Caribbean islands will sever ties with the Crown as well.

James O'Brien did a segment on this yesterday. Unsurprisingly the Windrush scandal played a role in this. The way that the Queen spoke up on matters such as climate change but was completely silent on Windrush whilst the Home Office ruined countless lives seems to have left a bad taste in plenty of people's mouths. As apparently does the political class' celebration of 'anti-wokeism' and failure to recognize that whilst the colonial period might be a warmly looked upon period of British history, that isn't the case in terms of Barbados'.

https://youtu.be/6q6k3gVkxUI 1h 40m mark or so.

There's also the situation of identity

Barbados casts the removal of Elizabeth II, who is queen of Barbados and 15 other realms including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and Jamaica, as a sign of confidence and a way to finally break with the demons of its colonial history.

"This is the end of the story of colonial exploitation of the mind and body," said Professor Sir Hilary Beckles, a Barbadian historian. He said this was a historic moment for Barbados, the Caribbean and all post-colonial societies.

"The people of this island have struggled, not only for freedom and justice, but to remove themselves from the tyranny of imperial and colonial authority," said Beckles, vice-chancellor of The University of the West Indies.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/456486 ... in-s-queen

“Full stop this colonial page,” Winston Farrell, a Barbadian poet said in a reading at the ceremony. “Some have grown up stupid under the Union Jack, lost in the castle of their skin.”

“It is about us, rising out of the cane fields, reclaiming our history,” he said.

Barbadian leaders have mooted a republic since the run-up to independence in 1966, when the country’s first prime minister, Errol Barrow, told a British minister his nation would “not loiter on colonial property past closing time”.

But in a world still shaped by colonialism, that has proved to be a fraught task that successive Barbadian governments have avoided, seeing it either as divisive, a distraction or a source of potential disquiet in Britain – from where more than a third of tourists to the country hail.

It took until independence day in November 2020 for Mottley’s government to announce the transition, shortly before she presided over a ceremony to remove a statue of the British naval hero Horatio Nelson from a city square, over his defence of the colonial slave trade.

questions over the role of the Queen in Barbados may have grown in light of the Windrush scandal that saw thousands of people of Caribbean heritage living in Britain facing potential deportation, said Guy Hewitt, a former Barbadian high commissioner in London.

“Windrush would have been one of those significant events that showed the divergence between where the Queen, as the queen of the United Kingdom, and her role as the queen of Barbados, may have been irreconcilable,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... t-republic

Kiwirob wrote:

How is that any different to the luxurious lifestyles afforded to most Presidents and there families around the world? New Zealand's Royal Family consists of one person, who we only fund when she comes to NZ, her representative in NZ the Governor General is fairly cheap. In Norway the Royal family was slimmed down a while back, it only consists of the King, his wife, and the Crown Prince and his family.

I like having a head of state who is not political and above the dirty taint of politics.

Agreed. It's fantastic to have a head of state whose above politics. I'm not a monarchist anymore (the Royal Family's protecting Prince Andrew certainly rubbed me the wrong way) but the status quo works entirely well. I do like how the governor general could be on a domestic flight and 95% of the passengers wouldn't know who they were, with none ot the 5% who do having any strong feelings about them. No security detail needed.

I also like how upon googling Dame Patsy Reddy, it turns out that her term has ended and that she's been replaced by someone else - I have no strong opinions of either of them and I'm fairly confident that nobody I know would have either.

Kiwirob wrote:

I'd hate to think what kind of moron we would elect to become President of NZ

A former All Black for sure.

Kiwirob wrote:

or the way things are going now they would likely be appointed by Maori.

What?

AirPacific747 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Link


Congrats to Barbados on becoming a republic.

Yes happy for them that is what they have chosen

Dutchy wrote:

The antiquated system of Royalty does not have a place in modern society.

That is your own personal opinion and not one shared by all

I for one am quite happy to remain in a constitutional monarchy

Living in a monarchy myself, I hate the idea of someone born into royalty and are above the law purely by coincidence. The same law which applies to everyone else. It's archaic and it doesn't serve any real purpose in a modern society. I'd prefer a democratically elected president.

Since when are democratically elected presidents not above the law? Or any politician for that matter?

ItnStln wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yes happy for them that is what they have chosen



That is your own personal opinion and not one shared by all

I for one am quite happy to remain in a constitutional monarchy

Living in a monarchy myself, I hate the idea of someone born into royalty and are above the law purely by coincidence. The same law which applies to everyone else. It's archaic and it doesn't serve any real purpose in a modern society. I'd prefer a democratically elected president.

Since when are democratically elected presidents not above the law? Or any politician for that matter?

Presidents and politicians sooner or later become ex-presidents and ex-politicians. Then they are fair game. Royalty is always royalty.

They are not above the law in my country.

ItnStln wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yes happy for them that is what they have chosen



That is your own personal opinion and not one shared by all

I for one am quite happy to remain in a constitutional monarchy

Living in a monarchy myself, I hate the idea of someone born into royalty and are above the law purely by coincidence. The same law which applies to everyone else. It's archaic and it doesn't serve any real purpose in a modern society. I'd prefer a democratically elected president.

Since when are democratically elected presidents not above the law? Or any politician for that matter?

A101 wrote:

Yes happy for them that is what they have chosen

Is it really what they have chosen, though? It might not be.