Head of State

[sage]

Following the Queen's sad passing, some Commonwealth countries like Antigua are looking to have a referendum on whether to become a republic amd not have King Charles as Head of State. This move would still mean they remain part of the Commonwealth but would have a President with no royal link to parliament. 

If this prompts a similar move in the UK and we decide to have an elected Head of State (still keeping the royalty in a slightly reduced role) who would you want as Head of State? 

Non-party political answers please. 

[Stive Pesley]

Sir Paul McCartney

[Highgate]

48 minutes ago, sage said:

Following the Queen's sad passing, some Commonwealth countries like Antigua are looking to have a referendum on whether to become a republic amd not have King Charles as Head of State. This move would still mean they remain part of the Commonwealth but would have a President with no royal link to parliament. 

If this prompts a similar move in the UK and we decide to have an elected Head of State (still keeping the royalty in a slightly reduced role) who would you want as Head of State? 

Non-party political answers please. 

So a Prime Minister, an elected Head of State and a Monarchy?  I think that might be overkill...  Surely it's elected Head of State OR a Monarchy? 

[Rev]

Susie Dent. 

Need I go on?

 

[Carl Sagan]

Apologies to @Sage but I'm going to answer the different question of who we would get, and I would expect a vote in the near future would give us President Boris. You can have good and bad presidents and good and bad monarchs, and I think most would agree we've had a good monarch these past 70 years. Obviously having a monarchy is idiotic in many ways, but because of the way social media and the 24 hour news media has massively amplified and promoted division here and elsewhere, I don't think this is the time to change it as anything other than monarchy would prove very divisive. Like, for instance, Johnson as President. As would Tony Blair. As for the suggestions here, I detest Macca's music and I used to know Susie pretty well, and she's quite political.

 

[1of4]

Myself. Wouldn't mind living in the lap of luxury and travelling round the world for a few years.

I could even cope with being followed around by the gutter press and all the rumours involving me with various actresses.

While making a few quid in bribes. No no not bribes, I mean contributions from lobbyists, like all those senior politician, who are supposedly running the country.

Then after a few years of diligently serving my country. I'd get a seat on the board of some company in the city and get paid an obscene amount of money for a few hours work each year.

Yep certainly take that position if it was offered.

[cstand]

Angie

As long as she wears a Derby shirt. ?

[sage]

7 hours ago, Highgate said:

So a Prime Minister, an elected Head of State and a Monarchy?  I think that might be overkill...  Surely it's elected Head of State OR a Monarchy? 

 

7 hours ago, Highgate said:

So a Prime Minister, an elected Head of State and a Monarchy?  I think that might be overkill...  Surely it's elected Head of State OR a Monarchy? 

By still a monarchy I mean they keep the titles and open things but have no power or role in govt. Its wa happens in most of Europe 

[GboroRam]

Mel Morris. Left us in a right state. 

[TigerTedd]

40 minutes ago, sage said:

 

By still a monarchy I mean they keep the titles and open things but have no power or role in govt. Its wa happens in most of Europe 

So we’d have an elected prime minister, and an elected president? Isn’t the role of the monarchy mostly ceremonial anyway, specifically non-political. 

[Ram-Alf]

A President of extreme and forthright views ?

 

[Leeds Ram]

I'd vote to retain the monarchy myself. Am not a big fan of the idea necessarily but people underestimate the upheaval it would cause to our constitutional makeup to remove them. It'd be a massive job with as of yet unforeseen consequences politically. They're deeply embedded inside our system, so just as I wouldn't vote to create a monarchy today, neither would I vote to remove them. Given the scale of crises we are facing (energy, health, europe being just 3) then wasting time rearranging our constitution is the last thing we need to be doing. 

 

 

https://theorymatters.substack.com/p/the-curious-case-of-monarchy 

[Stive Pesley]

11 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

people underestimate the upheaval it would cause to our constitutional makeup to remove them. It'd be a massive job

I think if there was a will from the Monarchy to reform themselves for the good of the country then it wouldn't be that big an issue

Remember that @sage isn't saying we remove the monarchy, just that we reconstitute their role

For example, is it OK that the monarchy is exempt from inheritance tax?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/king-charles-doesnt-pay-inheritance-135623335.html

So many things that could be changed which would benefit the country without being to the detriment of the monarchy. We could start there?

[Loughborough Ram]

Change isn't always a step forward.

People who would want to vote on an elected head of state, are surely the same people that want to abolish the monarchy, but they should take into account just how bad the people of this country are at electing officials. It would just introduce another level of power grabbing beurocracy, and would add very little, if anything at all, to the way we operate in this country.

The monarchy has its faults but in my opinion, changing to an elected head of state would create far more problems than it solved

[Leeds Ram]

8 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

I think if there was a will from the Monarchy to reform themselves for the good of the country then it wouldn't be that big an issue

Remember that @sage isn't saying we remove the monarchy, just that we reconstitute their role

For example, is it OK that the monarchy is exempt from inheritance tax?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/king-charles-doesnt-pay-inheritance-135623335.html

So many things that could be changed which would benefit the country without being to the detriment of the monarchy. We could start there?

If there was merely a small reformation of certain behaviours then a referendum would be unnecessary. Creating a President would be a substantial constitutional change, for instance formally removing the sovereign's prerogative powers would open up a large can of worms on several fronts re legislature vs the executive. Our constitution is largely built upon informal evolutionary movements and I'm always cautious towards any movement for substantial change. 

Edited September 12, 2022 by Leeds Ram

[Highgate]

2 hours ago, sage said:

By still a monarchy I mean they keep the titles and open things but have no power or role in govt. Its wa happens in most of Europe 

I don't think any of those Europeans monarchies have prime ministers as well as presidents.  Anyway given that it's a hypothetical, I suppose you can suggest anything you want.

I wouldn't have a vote, but I'd suggest President Stephen Fry.  No political experience (possibly a bonus), but with an intellect like his he could probably pick up the various legal requirements of the role in an afternoon.  And the speeches wouldn't be boring....how often can you say that about a Head of State? 

 

[sage]

2 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

So we’d have an elected prime minister, and an elected president? Isn’t the role of the monarchy mostly ceremonial anyway, specifically non-political. 

The PM reports in on a regular basis and you hvae to go to the King/Queen to form a govt. 

[RoyMac5]

Can we get a bus to tour the country with the benefits plastered on the side of it? 

[Anon]

So, now it's been established that we get a bank holiday when the head of state dies, if we can kill 1 per day we'll never have to work again. I suppose we'll eventually run out of heirs, but there are quite a lot of royals and after that we could move on to pretenders, like Perkin Warbeck and Chrissie Hynde.

Maybe we could space it out and just do 1 per week, then all you you workshy socialists will get your mythical 4 day week you're always banging on about.

[sawley_ram]

2 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

I'd vote to retain the monarchy myself. Am not a big fan of the idea necessarily but people underestimate the upheaval it would cause to our constitutional makeup to remove them. It'd be a massive job with as of yet unforeseen consequences politically. They're deeply embedded inside our system, so just as I wouldn't vote to create a monarchy today, neither would I vote to remove them. Given the scale of crises we are facing (energy, health, europe being just 3) then wasting time rearranging our constitution is the last thing we need to be doing. 

 

 

https://theorymatters.substack.com/p/the-curious-case-of-monarchy 

I think it would offer a good opportunity to finally have a written constitution and a bill of rights! 

I despise them, what they stand for and everything they have done throughout history to trample on the labouring classes.