Is a Hereditary Monarchy Viable in the UK’s Future?
What is a Constitutional Monarchy?
Quotation from the site: Britpolitics.co.uk
Constitutional monarchy refers to a system in which the monarch acts as a non-party political head of state under the constitution, whether written or unwritten
- A systemin which the king or queen’s power is severely limited, because they act only on the advice of the politicians who form the government
- As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. In addition to these State duties, The Monarch has a less formal role as ‘Head of Nation’. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service.
- In all these roles The Sovereign is supported by members of their immediate family.
The term monarchy derives from the Greek ‘monos arkhein’ meaning ‘one ruler’.
Queen II is the sovereign and hed of state of the UK and its overseas territories. The monarch, referred to in the abstract as “The Crown”, is the source of all legislative and executive power. Since Hnry VIII the British monarch is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The monarch is also Head of the Commonwealth and the head of state in 15 of the 53 Commonwealth member countries. The British political system is a ‘constitutional monarchy’: the supreme power held by the momarch is largely ceremonial and formal, with actual political power exercised by others.
In the United Kingdom, the monarch has the following constitutional duties: the state opening of parliament; the appointment of the prime minister; the approval of parliamentary legislation; the approval of official appointments; the approval of secondary legislation through the privy council; representational duties as head of state such as paying and receiving state visits to and from other heads of state; receiving the credentials of foreign Ambassadors; and regular confidential audiences with the prime minister.
In addition to these constitutional duties, the monarch is also the head of the armed forces; the head of the judiciary; the head of the civil service; and the supreme governor of the Church of England.
The monarch is also the fount of honour, and all honours are awarded in his or her name (although, with notable exceptions, most are awarded on the advice of the government).
Support for the monarchy
The argument that the UK should abolish the monarchy and become a republic remains at the fringes of mainstream political debate.
The monarchy as an institution retains public support and the Queen herself is perceived largely as above criticism, despite the standing of the Royal Family being regarded to have suffered considerably in the last 30 years. I personally think that perception is changing, but people still do seem to think the Queen is untouchable, and that it is herecy to criticise her any way. I do think, however, that increasing numbers of people think that the Monarchy will begin to crumble once the Queen passes.
According to YouGov Polls in October 2020, 67% of people wished to see the monarchy continue in the future, compared to 21% who stated their preference for an elected head of state, and 12% who didn’t know.
Support for the royal family remained almost identical amongst different social classes, albeit there were regional and age variations.
Compared to 67% in the country as a whole, just 58% of Londoners and 42% of those aged 18-24 supported the continuation of the monarchy.
Never forget that Camilla (Duchess of Cornwall) nephew is on the senior management board of You Gov, so take any poll from that source with a pinch of salt. Shame, because it used to be one of the reliable many years ago, but clearly, the BRF have their tentacles into that organisation now, and any statistics from there will only show positive things about the Royal family, particularly Prince Charles, and only negative things about the Sussexes. The only reason I am quoting from them at all is to say with certainty that never in this world is there 42% of 18-24 year olds who wish to retain a monarchy. The percentage of people the age of William and Kate do not support them to that kind of figure, and therefore I am sure that even younger age group of people in the UK does not reach anywhere near 42% in terms of retaining the Monarchy. I am guessing that the young people polled came from the aristocracy.
“Am impartial and symbolic head of state
A constitutional monarch is one who is above party politics or factional interests.”
- If this was true The Queen and members of her family would not be holding meetings behind closed doors, where media are not even allowed to be on the grounds of the venue chosen for these non partisan or non political chats with senior politicians and/or former political leader all with the view to try and stop Scotland gaining independent status from the rest of the UK.
- Someone above party politics does not have laws changed to ensure that the Royal Family is exempt from meeting environmental targets.
The monarch is thus said to be a focus of national unity. Supporters of a constitutional monarchy stress the benefits of the head of government (the prime minister) being separate from the role as head of state.
A constitutional monarch is also able to give impartial non-political support to the work of a wide range of different types of organizations and charities that would not be possible in the same way for a political figure.” Quote from politics.co.uk
- Too many of the charities that the Royal family claim to support are closing due to lack of funds. There is an archaic belief that merely having the Royal logo showing against the Charity name, will ensure success. As there is next to actual feet on the ground support from members of the RF apart from ribbon cutting and a visit every few years, it is clear that they operating with a business model the is centuries old. No tangible benefit to the charities or the nation.
This unifying non political role of the royal family spreads through the Queen’s annual Christmas Broadcast, attendance at ceremonial events like Trooping the Colour, and the dispatch of congratulatory telegrams to centenarians and couples marking their Diamond Wedding anniversary.
- The role is not a unifying role with anyone else other than the government of the day. It is definitely not tangible in the eyes of the general public. I have never watched an Annual Christmas Broadcast in my 60+ years, and I have no intention of doing so. No stranger, giving any kind of broadcast to a nation can possibly connect, when the rest of the year, they may as well live on another planet. They are totally out of sync with ordinary people, and demonstrate every day, that they have no understanding of the life lived by most people every day. A smile and a wave every now and then does zero for me. It is condescending to think otherwise. The fact that there are 53 commonwealth countries in existence, and 15 of them still have the queen as Head of State is mind blowing to me. I hope all of the 53 come to their senses soon.
- The Royal Family in the UK is a figurehead family representing white supremacy in the UK. Nothing more and nothing less. Their role is to preserve their current way of life. The government, the uk media and aristocracy all have the same goal.
A system that has been in place for centuries has no place in the modern world. None. The UK brf exists because it is supported by the government, and the other groups I have mentioned. It allows a way of life to continue without challenge. The British people have never been allowed to vote on whether or not a Monarchy is wanted, and the media arm of the quartet of vested interests. Do not wish their way of life in each group to change.
Now, when we look at the British Royal Family, and its notion of being a Firm, many things fall short, in terms of adapting and staying alongside, if not ahead of the changes. One of the main stumbling blocks on such an entity is that the members of the Firm, ie the notional workforce, are family members who are given roles, which have nothing to do with competency or ability to acquire knowledge, but merely on the order of birth from a parent who is also judged by their position in the Line of Succession. Activity has never been measured or scrutinised in any way, and quality is therefore always described in glowing terms, despite the fact that no meaningful measure is ever applied. The figures shown every year next to the various patronages are meant to give the impression of increase in income from being a patronage of the Royal Family, and each year this index is proudly quoted in terms of the number of visits, ribbon cutting, waving etc and the income that flowed in as a result. The reality is that those figures are estimates of what WILL LIKELY BE earned in that year, when all the calculations are made. No explanation is ever given about how those figures are arrived at and at what point do the ‘actual’ earnings ever appear? Unlike businesses in the real world, they have the pressure of providing detailed figures to a variety of bodies, including HMRC for tax purposes.
Points to include:-
If the Queen is Supposedly acting on behalf of the government of the day. Therefore does this mean, protecting Prince Andrew from the legal process is approved by the UK Govt?
Nothing negative is ever written publicly about those regarded as Senior Royals and in Line of Succession – no matter the activity. When something does appear to be criticising a snr member of the brf, it is due to the other two palaces working together to remove what they deem to be blockage on the way to the throne.
- The hereditary monarchy system encourages family members to be pitted against each other, and history has shown that some of those who were in line to take the throne, their lives were brought to an end, by people connected with/on behalf of the next in Line.
- BRF claimed that Meghan was not family and not an employee of the brf. No financial provision made for her; she paid her own way. The Firm claimed that it would be embarrassing to admit that a member of the BRF needed to seek help for her mental health.
- Yet apparently one member wanted for questioning, and is regarded as a Person of Interest by the FBI for credible reasons, relating sex trafficking of minors, and who has done so much already to avoid responding to this order from the FBI, is not deemed embarrassing to the BRF.
- BRF members found to be accepting funds for their charities, by donors who then quite often are awarded honours. Seeing that the BRF works on behalf of the Government, we should not therefore be surprised that there are donors to the Conservative party, who within days before a donation is made, or a few days pre awards being announced in the honours list, nothing is said about that either. The some of the charities themselves state they have never received such funding, in these days of increasing hardship, and it would have been welcome. This too does not appear to cause embarrassment to the BRF. History has shown that those in Line of Succession to the throne, will NEVER be shown to have done any wrong, and will certainly not be made accountable. Traditionally Royals used a Whipping Boy to take the blame for their deeds of the senior Royal. Since Prince Harry stepped away from this toxic environment, a few people have fallen on their sword for a senior Royal – whatever the official statement put out. Currently those queries relating to the money trail of funds coming in for one purpose, but being used for something entirely different, are investigated by the same charity foundation which appears to have knowledge of this money trail. Why not an independent investigation? The age old excuse, the Monarchy and its senior Royals cannot be seen to be critizised??
- Royals exempt from the laws that the rest of the country has to abide by??
- Environmental legislation has been changed following intervention by the queen to make all royal households exempt from such requirements. Officially the Queen does not lobby, nor any of the family, yet here we are with the queen changing legislation behind closed doors.
- Equality legislation does not apply to the workforce employed by the Monarchy?? Once again, mirroring behaviour of the UK govt in a few areas where it seems rules do not apply to them either. Eg travelling during lockdown for a non essential reason. Contracts awarded to organisations where the CEO is a personal friend of the ministers concerned.
The treatment of the only person of colour entering into the BRF has placed the largest nail yet in the lifespan of the BRF. Evidence growing by the day of the number of people involved in trying to bring Meghan down, and Harry for standing by his wife and children. The shennanigns in the months leading up to the wedding of the Sussexes in 2018 has once again come to the fore. It is like a spiders web of names and organisations who joined in this quest to cause harm to the Sussexes which included an American citizen. Come on Intrnational Law makers what are you waiting for? It is clear that much effort was put into Meghan having a miscarriage with her first baby, and I personally believe that the amount of continued stress placed upon Meghan in 2020 was the main cause of that miscarriage. People are now revealing themselves and their role in this quest to destroy the Sussexes, and I hope I live to see all held accountable.
I have doubts about the members of the Royal family, because when the monarch is the head of the legal system and the church, and all the other groups mentioned in the societal tree, have tentacles into those organisations, all will rally around each other to protect each other. Like I said earlier, it is all about joining the dots. Sussex Squad joined those dots since 2017, and have been adding to it since. Now that more names are coming into the frame, and supposedly meant to be leaving posts, they strangely seem to be hanging around the palaces just the same. More junior ones have been found very nice employment elsewhere, some abroad. All very cosy, and smelling more than a healthy compost heap. The smell from this group of protagonists is anything but healthy.
Some of the people that the BRF commissioned to do dirty deeds to destroy the marriage taking place of the Sussexes, and the clear intent to destroy or end life of Meghan Duchess of Sussex, will ultimately lead to more name rising to the top of the scum heap that they all inhabit. Some of those will be deemed dispensable, and others will no doubt receive financial payment for their silence.
In the time of global pandemic, we have groups of people working overtime, on tax payer funds, to preserve their way of life. Concern for the way of life of the people in the UK appears to be far from their minds.
- The telegrams from the Queen when an ordinary person reaches the age of 100 is tokenism, when they quality of life in the UK has reduced for most people, a communication from a person who does not care one iota about you is meaningless.
- A card for couple who reach a diamond anniversary means diddly squat to most people, not least because it is insincere, and just a factory line production.
- Trooping of the Colour is something I never watched until Harry and Meghan attended, and I will watch no more in the future. The whole brf and what they stand for is something that I have no intention of supporting.
After watching the antics and the hoops that certain groups of people have gone through with the aim of destroying the Sussexes, Meghan in particular, I personally have no doubt whatsoever about what happened to Princess Diana 1997.
After watching the antics over the last few days to remove footage from the airways on every platform where a certain interview was shown, and where one of the money hungry parasites used by the BRF and pals, to destroy the Sussexes, spoke out of turn, it just reinforces the treatment of Harry and Meghan. There is plenty of footage of things being said about Meghan, truly vile things not to mention the lies, and that footage is still there. In many ways, they provide useful receipts. The sheer wickedness and evil of this family and their hangers on, all done on tax payers expense, is beyond the pail. The fact that the Queen’s husband is allowed to make a Will and have sealed by Law for 90 years because the content may hurt the Queen? Really?? It is obvious that there are people who have been looked after who are not children of the Queen and her husband. Everyone with a working brain knows all about that, and more to the point there are numerous children in that cult with mothers who are not married to their fathers, and then this family want to lecture others about who they should marry and that they should leave their wife and children behind to come and grift for this Cult.
No, there is no need for a Monarchy anywhere in a modern society. None. The façade that they think they are portraying is not fooling many, and I personally can live my life without a smile and a wave from people who would only employ someone like me in a servile position. Most of the BRF are dunderheads, and are in no position to look down on others, just because of whichever birth canal they emerged from. My family and ancestors knew more about values and humanity than any of these current cult members on a plantation behind gilded gates. This present group are more than content for people to lose their life, or be placed in danger, if it ensures survival of the Monarchy. Will never forgive for the actions taken against the Sussexes, and will actively join any movement that is genuielly operating for it to come to an end.
In contrast, I would travel anywhere, cross continents, support their charities, support and actively defend Harry and Meghan to the best of my ability, because even though I know I will never meet them, the over riding thing for me is that they are sincere in what they say and do. For that reason alone, I will be a lifetime supporter, and it has zero reason because it is due to Royal connections. I respect and support them because of what they stand for, and in actual fact, anyone who chooses to link with the BRF I regard as swimming in the same toxic tank, and it is definitely not in any way a feather in ones cap to be link to a Cult with inherent privilege, and with the tragedies and suffering that seem to be linked to this chain of people over centuries.
Harry and Meghan are the face of global humanitarianism. Monarchy anywhere is not.
This is a particularly good site, which traces the historical aspects of the Monarchy and Parliament, and the changing of the roles between the two, leading up to present day. Each key point in history, to either side, is set out logically and very user friendly. Highly recommend.