Why is the Queen our "Head of State" ?

[Harleyman]

Alas, I'm too ignorant when it comes to politics to really give any good answers to your questions.

 

I really don't see what's wrong with just scrapping the queen and leaving everything else how it is, let revolution be our recourse for tyrannical governance (which is probably how things actually are anyway). Don't quite know how you'd handle the army though, as skeptical that I am that the monarch would ever use them against the government, you got any ideas?

 

You wont have to concern yourself too much about the army, the RAF or the Royal Navy. They would soon end up at about the same as Lichenstein's military.

I'll excuse your apparent lack of knowledge on such affairs but military officers and many in the ranks, the great majority in fact hold much store by allegience to the monarch.

 

I could see mass resignations following an act of parliament that abolishes the monarchy or if it was overthrown by revolution intervention by the army to protect the monarch with perhaps a few renegade units supporting the revolutionaries. Total chaos with perhaps army brass calling on the French and Germans to send troops over to help restore order. A violently unstable Britain would be seen as a threat to Europe anyway.

 

Beware of what you unleash. It will come back and bite your head off

[Harleyman]

beyond saying "your presidentship" instead of "your majesty" nothing would really change, so really, what would be the point?

 

it's quite hard to imagine a government where the head of state would need to call on the army to intervene. such a government would probably have fallen to a quick people's revolution long before then

 

Very funny. I can see Chinese and Japanese leaders trying to get their tongues round that one.

 

Try Mister President or Sir instead

[Dick]

Trouble is no one's come up with anything better.

assuming we have to have a head of state, without the Queen we'd have a president.

And that would be a nice little number for some superannuted politician.

President Blair. How would you like that.

[JFKvsNixon]

You wont have to concern yourself too much about the army, the RAF or the Royal Navy. They would soon end up at about the same as Lichenstein's military.

I'll excuse your apparent lack of knowledge on such affairs but military officers and many in the ranks, the great majority in fact hold much store by allegience to the monarch.

 

I could see mass resignations following an act of parliament that abolishes the monarchy or if it was overthrown by revolution intervention by the army to protect the monarch with perhaps a few renegade units supporting the revolutionaries. Total chaos with perhaps army brass calling on the French and Germans to send troops over to help restore order. A violently unstable Britain would be seen as a threat to Europe anyway.

 

Beware of what you unleash. It will come back and bite your head off

 

The mistake that you're making is that you assume that the military is loyal the monarch personally, the loyalty is towards the crown which is a representation of the country. For example in a criminal court, the case is the crown verses the defendant. If the monarch acted in a way that was seriously detrimental to the country, they would be removed, for example Edward VIII's abdication.

[flamingjimmy]

You wont have to concern yourself too much about the army, the RAF or the Royal Navy. They would soon end up at about the same as Lichenstein's military.

I'll excuse your apparent lack of knowledge on such affairs but military officers and many in the ranks, the great majority in fact hold much store by allegience to the monarch.

That was kind of why I was raising the point. There'd have to be a pretty big change in the way the army see their duty, imo it should be to the people and not the monarch anyway.

 

I could see mass resignations following an act of parliament that abolishes the monarchy or if it was overthrown by revolution intervention by the army to protect the monarch with perhaps a few renegade units supporting the revolutionaries. Total chaos with perhaps army brass calling on the French and Germans to send troops over to help restore order. A violently unstable Britain would be seen as a threat to Europe anyway.

Yes well I wouldn't put much stock in that.

[Paulma]

Yes, the 1980s were hard for a lot of people.

 

Do I have a sense of deja vu?

[Harleyman]

The mistake that you're making is that you assume that the military is loyal the monarch personally, the loyalty is towards the crown which is a representation of the country. For example in a criminal court, the case is the crown verses the defendant. If the monarch acted in a way that was seriously detrimental to the country, they would be removed, for example Edward VIII's abdication.

 

 

Agreed on that of course but as the military forces are loyal to the crown they would expect that the crown would pass to a successor.

 

My point was that if an act of parliament was passed abolishing the monarchy I would see an upheaval of major proportions within the military structure resulting in resignations on a massive scale.

 

Some posters on here get a bit carried away with talk of revolution and forceful removal of the monarch. That would be a whole different scenario with the military intervening to forcefully quell the revolution or more than likely an attempted coup d'etat in this case as an overwhelming majority of the British public would side with the military and the revolutionaries as they style themselves vastly outnumbered and subject to charges of high treason.

 

A toast to the " Queen, God Bless Her" was always customary in messes in any British military base anywhere in the world when i was a serviceman.

 

The army may have changed very much since my day but I'm sure that custom has remained unchanged.

 

Placing myself in that situation were I a soldier there would be no question of my loyalty to the crown

[Harleyman]

That was kind of why I was raising the point. There'd have to be a pretty big change in the way the army see their duty, imo it should be to the people and not the monarch anyway.

 

Yes well I wouldn't put much stock in that.

 

You obviously have no idea of how the military see themselves in relation to the crown.

If the transition to a republic was changed by an act of parliament as I have already said about 90 perecent of the exisiting army would have to be replaced. That's a scenario that's impossible to imagine.

 

We're not talking here about removing despots. Monarchy are not despots in this day and age unlike in 19th century France and 1918 Russia so dont imagine that the army would flock to the side of any revolutionaries trying to overthrow the royal family

 

Those Europeans monarchs who lost their crowns did so for very valid reasons.

 

Loius XVI of France. Heavy taxes by a bankrupt treasury on a downtrodden population with serious food shortages to boot

 

Czar Nicholas. Misrule and incompetence resulting in a disasterous war with Germany and the mass of society still living in the feudal ages

 

Kaiser Wilhem. Exiled to Holland as a result of a catastrophic defeat for Germany because of a war that he got himself into by his support of an extremely unpopular empire

 

King George 111. Taxing the American colonies who had no representation in the mother country

[Chris_Sleeps]

We're not talking here about removing despots. [...] so dont imagine that the army would flock to the side of any revolutionaries trying to overthrow the royal family

I don't think anyone here is advocating a violent revolution. I can only speak for myself, but there are examples of functioning government that is without a monarchy. If i don't agree with monarchy, and i don't, i have the right to say that Britain should consider this path.

 

I said it before on another thread, but i have no hope for Republicanism in my lifetime. Unless Charles turns out to be a bigger fool than ever and really messes things up. A British monarch keeping their nose out of politics holds a very safe place in our country. It was the last pair of Charlies that had a rough ride on the thrown.

 

King George 111. Taxing the American colonies who had no representation in the mother country

I'm a pedant, i know, but George III lost the American colonies, not his crown. That was still very intact all the way through his "dribbling years".

[Harleyman]

I dont know if you're aware but curiously enough the American founding fathers at one time thought about making George Washington the first American monarch. He wasnt interested in the idea however and neither was Oliver Cromwell when the idea of creating a Cromwell dynasty was put to him

The idea of presidents as leaders instead of kings was something radical in an age when monarchs were almost deity like in the eyes of ordinary people