The Monarchy

[Hobbit]

Its so difficult to set a rule for them to retire. It seemed to me the time for the Queen was when her Mother died so that Charles could take over before he was too old. As an arbitiry number I would suggest 70 was a reasonable age to consider, this would have given Charles 20 years and William around 40..

You're setting a number against a specific scenario. That number will, in all probability, not work for the next generation of Royals. Rather than it be an arbitrary number, why not have a competency test. At least that way the person is employed based on their ability to do the job, rather than an ability to live a long time.

 

[Old Skier]

You're setting a number against a specific scenario. That number will, in all probability, not work for the next generation of Royals. Rather than it be an arbitrary number, why not have a competency test. At least that way the person is employed based on their ability to do the job, rather than an ability to live a long time.

I'd rather see a number placed on the term of office for MPs than the monarch.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

I'd rather see a number placed on the term of office for MPs than the monarch.

There already is, 5 years, then they get put up for re-election 👍

 

[Old Skier]

There already is, 5 years, then they get put up for re-election 👍

Yes but I would only let them serve a max of 4 x5 year terms.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I think we need to look a little beyond the personalities involved and look at the institution of the monarchy and the role they play in our political system.

As Far as personality goes I think Her Majesty the Queen has done a great job has been hard working diligent discreet and a great ambassador for the UK.
However I do think it is beyond time we had a rethink of the British constitution and the role the monarch plays in it. We currently have a 93 year old as head of state , potentially deciding with advice on who to choose as prime minister , whether or not parliament should be dissolve, prorogued etc. WIth the best will in the world nobody at the age of 93 has the same intellectual capacity of the same person 30 years younger. We may have a time when the monarch is not someone who is loved and respected by the majority of their people and the armed forces of this country , what happens then?
The time to change an institution and update it is when it works not when it fails and it is grabbed by the nearest chancer. We should have updated the monarchy and their role years ago saving that we should do it soon before it is too late.

We do not have a UK constitution, that is why we always seem to be in such a mucking fuddle.
Now would be a good time to wipe the slate clean with politics, the HoL, the honours system and the Monarchy. Time to press the re-set button.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

Yes but I would only let them serve a max of 4 x5 year terms.

Well that’s up to the electorate.

Let’s think that through properly.

If you are limiting the career of an MP to 20 years, who are you going to get to do the job. Do you get young people in at 20 and kick them out at 40?
What do they do next in life?
Or do you get people aged 40+ who have life experience, but who are out of touch with the younger generation?

I agree some of the current MPs are a shower, but the only way to deal with it is an election.

In a perfect world we would have the emergence of a new broad centrist party, which would attract support from far and wide........oh yes, like that one Chukka and Anna Soubery started, ......that went well

 

[SocketRocket]

You're setting a number against a specific scenario. That number will, in all probability, not work for the next generation of Royals. Rather than it be an arbitrary number, why not have a competency test. At least that way the person is employed based on their ability to do the job, rather than an ability to live a long time.

Not really, I am just setting a suggested number of 70, maybe it should be normal retirement age. I am not a big proponent of the monarchy but it seems silly to me that Elizabeth is still on the throne while charles is 71.

 

[Backache]

Without resorting to an argument, don't you think that's ageist? There's younger ones amongst the Royals, e.g. Andrew, who'd be my last choice and then some to be monarch, and he's way younger than the Queen or Charles but him, no way on God's earth.

I'm not sure if recognising the fact that sthe same person age 93 is likely to have less cognition than when they were 60 is ageist if so then yes I am . Would it be the ageist if I said that someone age 93 is likely to be able to hit a golf ball less far than when they were 60?

Does the fact that someone who was second in line to the throne and is still within reach of the throne is your last choice for monarch not give you some cause for concern with the institution of hereditary head of state?

 

[Backache]

Do you really think the role of the queen in regards politics is anything more than ceremonial these days and it’s the same with being the head of the armed forces. That won’t change when Charles steps up then William - they aren’t going to do anything to rock the boat - even though at times I suspect of lot of people wished our current head of state might have stopped the current PM

The actual powers that the monarch has are rather more than ceremonial whether or not they choose to exercise those powers is of course up to them. My point is that as a country we probably need someone other than the prime minister capable of exercising some power including appointment of prime ministers and how parliament can sit etc. I believe that person would be better elected in some form rather than being hereditary.
One could still have a monarch if it was so desired but we rather need someone who can exercise the powers that currently reside with the monarch, rather than someone who is there just to dress up.

 

[Backache]

We do not have a UK constitution, that is why we always seem to be in such a mucking fuddle.
Now would be a good time to wipe the slate clean with politics, the HoL, the honours system and the Monarchy. Time to press the re-set button.

We do have a constitution but it is not very well defined and is unwritten, the Queen is a constitutional monarch .
But I basically agree with your post that we need to reform and define it .

 

[Hobbit]

I'm not sure if recognising the fact that sthe same person age 93 is likely to have less cognition than when they were 60 is ageist if so then yes I am . Would it be the ageist if I said that someone age 93 is likely to be able to hit a golf ball less far than when they were 60?

Does the fact that someone who was second in line to the throne and is still within reach of the throne is your last choice for monarch not give you some cause for concern with the institution of hereditary head of state?

I don't dispute that someone at 93 might have less cognitive capability than when they were 60 but that doesn't mean they are incapable, only less capable than they were but could still be capable of doing the job. And Andrew isn't second in line for the throne. Its William, followed by George and then his sister.

As for the golf ball analogy; not hitting it as far doesn't mean they can't hit it, and that they can't compete. When they can no longer hit it, then they can't do the job.

You're choosing based on age, not ability to achieve a certain, competent level. That's discrimination.

In a later post, you might have seen I suggested a competency test. If they're good enough, they get the job, or keep it, irrespective of age. Why sack someone just because they're old?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The actual powers that the monarch has are rather more than ceremonial whether or not they choose to exercise those powers is of course up to them. My point is that as a country we probably need someone other than the prime minister capable of exercising some power including appointment of prime ministers and how parliament can sit etc. I believe that person would be better elected in some form rather than being hereditary.
One could still have a monarch if it was so desired but we rather need someone who can exercise the powers that currently reside with the monarch, rather than someone who is there just to dress up.

So who else other than the Prime Minister should have power ? Not one single person really has that much power in the UK - there are committees and cabinets etc

Do we really want a monarch who can overrule the government? Is that creeping into dictatorship ?

 

[Doon frae Troon]

We do have a constitution but it is not very well defined and is unwritten, the Queen is a constitutional monarch .
But I basically agree with your post that we need to reform and define it .

Sorry, but an unwritten constitution aint worth the paper it is...…...oh well

 

[SocketRocket]

So who else other than the Prime Minister should have power ? Not one single person really has that much power in the UK - there are committees and cabinets etc

Do we really want a monarch who can overrule the government? Is that creeping into dictatorship ?

They are normally called Presedents but not necessaraly dictatorships.

 

[Grant85]

Personally nothing against the people in the Royal Family but no person should be born into so much privilege, allowed to inherit so much free of inheritance tax and receive a reasonably comfortable and risk free lifestyle, income & residence courtesy of the tax payer.

We are probably fortunate that the current main Royals are generally dutiful and take their roles seriously, but clearly there is no guarantee this will always be the case. I'm fairly sure the Queens sister had a good ole time that wouldn't have stood up to much scrutiny these days.

We also hear often how the Royals generate so much for the economy (the London economy at least)... well plenty of people visit the Palace of Versailles in Paris, despite there having been no Royal Family there for a few centuries. I'm sure Buckingham Palace would earn far more revenue as a tourist attraction where people would pay a tenner to have a walk around, view the art collection & jewels and buy some memorobillia. No doubt plenty of businesses would also hire some it for functions etc. Same goes for the various other residencies scattered around London that could earn millions for the taxpayer if managed effectively.

And don't get me started on the national anthem... religion and royalty - two hilariously outdated concepts that have no place trying to represent an entire country.

 

[Backache]

I don't dispute that someone at 93 might have less cognitive capability than when they were 60 but that doesn't mean they are incapable, only less capable than they were but could still be capable of doing the job. And Andrew isn't second in line for the throne. Its William, followed by George and then his sister.

As for the golf ball analogy; not hitting it as far doesn't mean they can't hit it, and that they can't compete. When they can no longer hit it, then they can't do the job.

You're choosing based on age, not ability to achieve a certain, competent level. That's discrimination.

In a later post, you might have seen I suggested a competency test. If they're good enough, they get the job, or keep it, irrespective of age. Why sack someone just because they're old?

Firstly I didn't say Andrew is second in line I said he was, and he is still in line.

I have not suggested we should sack the Queen based on age, I am suggesting that at her age it is unlikely that she still has the mental flexibility to make decisions that are frequently required by most heads of State. If you are suggesting a formal test of her cognitive abilities I would not demur.

 

[Backache]

So who else other than the Prime Minister should have power ? Not one single person really has that much power in the UK - there are committees and cabinets etc

Do we really want a monarch who can overrule the government? Is that creeping into dictatorship ?

Actually the Prime minister does have n awful lot of power in the UK. more within the country than the President of the USA. I am not suggesting that the Monarch should over rule government I do think that having someone with the powers that the monarch has and is more democratically accountable would help avoid the concentration of power that can aid tyrants.

 

[Backache]

Sorry, but an unwritten constitution aint worth the paper it is...…...oh well

A personal opinion is that an unwritten constitution is not valueless but is probably less good ., But either written or unwritten constitutions require healthy functioning structures and institutions to support them and many of ours have weakened over the years particularly the second chamber and the party political system with it's now rather narrow and factional membership and we need an overhaul and this should include a review of the role of the monarch.

 

[User62651]

Am sure theres a point to that but am not getting it 😳

A point was made about monarchy and it's close ties to armed forces and somehow that made it more relevant to whether a monarchy is still required, I merely offered a stat to indicate that relative to population armed forces are relative small part of civil service and are no more or no less important than any other jobs. It's a career choice (since national service ceased) and whilst it is an important job I don't see why Monarchy is needed for the armed forces to function, when they function perfectly well in many republics too. Nothing more.

 

[Backache]

You're choosing based on age, not ability to achieve a certain, competent level. That's discrimination.

By the way would discounting George on grounds of age also be discrimination?
Personally I would not want either as active head of state on age grounds.