Brits protest Monarchy, demand exile
- Thread starter Kreskin
- Start date
"British Youth",
is this anything like the "French Youth" which is neither French nor Youth?
Joking aside,
it depends on how the politicians will react to Charles' abdication (I think that is the plan as they seem to be grooming Prince William a lot more than the heir assumpative who otherwise hasn't been in the media since Dianne's death)
is this anything like the "French Youth" which is neither French nor Youth?
Joking aside,
it depends on how the politicians will react to Charles' abdication (I think that is the plan as they seem to be grooming Prince William a lot more than the heir assumpative who otherwise hasn't been in the media since Dianne's death)
Don't hold your breath.....back in the nineteenth century some wise wag was asked a question on the future of monarchy......he said;
'In one hundred years, there will only be 5 crowned heads in all of Europe."
'Only five! Could you name who you think they will be??"
"Yes. The King of England, the King of Spades, the King of Hearts, the King of Diamonds, and the King of Clubs."
He was off a bit.......
I think that same observation could be made today.
Getting rid of powerless constitutional monarchs is difficult because they don't actually cause any problems. If Canada got rid of the monarchy how would things in Canada actually improve? Something extraneous and unpredictable needs to happen to galvanize people against monarchism. Monarchies, with their propensity for inbreeding and total reliance on accidents of birth (not merit) in selecting leaders, are prone to these kinds of problems, I'd say. The British monarchy is lucky that all the ways they've made asses of themselves haven't caught up with them yet, and with King Charles III waiting in the wings the survival of the monarchy relies on another tremendous stroke of luck: the popularity of his son (or better put his ex-wife's son) and his photogenic girl-next-door bride.
In fact, the Royal family is a HUGE money maker for Great Britain. The palaces, and all of the other stuff would not get anywhere near as much tourism if there was no monarch. Then, there is all the kitsch that people purchase (both Brits AND non-Brits).
I would not bet on Charles abdicating. After his great uncle, there is zero chance of that happening. But, if his mother lives as long as her mother did, his reign will be a very short one.
If Canada gets rid of the Monarch, then who do you put in that place? The Prime Minister is relieved of a LOT of duty by the Governor, and by the Royals. I doubt if any P.M. really wants to be the actual head of the government (he really is the de facto head).
Personally, I'd like to see Scotland break off, and become a separate county once again.
I would not bet on Charles abdicating. After his great uncle, there is zero chance of that happening. But, if his mother lives as long as her mother did, his reign will be a very short one.
If Canada gets rid of the Monarch, then who do you put in that place? The Prime Minister is relieved of a LOT of duty by the Governor, and by the Royals. I doubt if any P.M. really wants to be the actual head of the government (he really is the de facto head).
Personally, I'd like to see Scotland break off, and become a separate county once again.
This is why I think ditching the monarchy in Canada is matter of growing up. Plenty of other countries are capable of fusing a political and ceremonial head of state into one person. Why isn't Canada capable of this?
Actually, that would require a complete overhaul of the Parliamentary system.........
If it works.....don't fix it.
My point is that the argument for separating the head of state and the head of government is a non-starter. Lots of countries combine the offices successfully. If we insist on maintaining the Westminster model, there are still plenty of republics that follow that model with ceremonial heads of state. There is no reason to believe that Canada needs a monarchy, functionally or symbolically.