Are there any heredity monarchist supporters here?

[wearestardust]

Originally Posted by Darwinsbulldog

1. Monarchies gained their initial authority [mostly] by military conquest. And then they reinforced it by taking advantage of the invention called religion.

Sure. And as I noted in my immediately preceding post, one wouldn't start from a blank slate with royalty. But one could also point to various awfulnesses of the past history of democracy (eg one of the major preoccupations of chunks of parliament and the Protectorate during the English Civil Wars and the Commonwealth was to impose a particular and intolerant form of xianity on the populace.

2. Monarchies [however benign] create biases in the community stability that favoures the elite.

In the UK they might. Not sure about elsewhere? In the modern world its money, not hereditary position, that determines status. Except perhaps in the mind of those decreasing number of titled persons and their Sloan children.

3. Monarchies, and their hangers on [church, upper classes, etc] have undue influence in politics and the state more than their numbers would suggest they should have in a democracy.

4. At least in the UK, monarchies, by being "defender of the faith" actually stifle healthy dissent from customs. This includes excluding other faiths, and for that matter, people of no faith.

Once, yes, but I'm not sure that those points are true today.

5. Political stability, at the cost non-awareness [Marx's "opium of the masses comes to mind], is arguably, unhealthy stability.

Are they that unaware? I suspect it may be more about social mores and customs than presence or not of a monarch at the top.

I also dispute your claim of the money spent on Royals. Actually, they are better value for money than they ever were. The theatre of monarchy is a major tourist cash cow, and there is no doubt that at least as far as Elizabeth II goes, the monarchy is a great diplomatic asset as well.

Maybe even thirty years ago these problems might have been 'live' - in Britain and maybe, just maybe, Oz as well. I don't know about elsewhere. But, it seems to me, society has moved on. In the UK they've changed the concept of titles so much that hereditary lords (like Monckton) are mocked for not being 'real' lords!



Should "sloan" be spelled "sloane"?

[EvilDRMike]

To add my two cents to this. For me it is not bout how functional or not a monarchy is it is about people being equal before the law and within society. Monarchy especially the British one is above the law in a number of areas even after the much vaunted cutting back on this a few years ago.

EDM

[Xeno]

The form of government which is encompassed by the British monarchy works here with the Governor-General, the difference being that the G-G is appointed for a fixed term by parliament and acquires no privileges by being born. I am happy with that system of government, minus any connection to any foreign Head of State such as the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Mountbatten-Windsors or whatever they are.

This essentially answers for me all of the points raised so far.

[BlueDevil]

Was our very own Lord Blackadder an inheritor of the title?

[unsaved]

Another vote here for the Russian / French Retirement Plan. Too many soldiers have died for "King and Country". The Press have made Icons of the Royals and will never give up this money spinner.

[wearestardust]

Originally Posted by unsaved

Another vote here for the Russian / French Retirement Plan.

And with the bowels of the last priest,
Let us strangle the last king

- Diderot

[DanDare]

I am a firm believer in having a random head of state, chosen by lottery from the entire population old enough to speak. Their powers should include commenting on the state of society, acting as a celebrity, being cheered by people in pubs and opening shopping malls. They should be pampered and live tax free at the public's expense for life, but have to give up the title itself at age sixty two and hand it over to another randomly chosen successor. They should not be allowed to wear pink on any clothing, even undergarments.

Has anyone read this?

Queen's diamond jubilee: a vapid family and a mirage of nationhood. What's to celebrate?

If the very idea of monarchy diminishes us, the living reality is much more humiliating and damaging to our country

Linky...

I wrote to the Queen once, when I was in primary school. I suggested that all roads should be built underground. Then we could build parks and farmland where the roads are now.

I got a very nice reply written by Susanne Hussy, lady in waiting. I kept that letter and had a passionate thing for Ms Hussy for many years.

[Centauri]

Having kings and queens and princes and princesses in this day and age is utterly ridiculous. It is mindless garbage, meant for sales of Women's Weekly magazines.

I've done whatever I can to avoid this Jubilee crap.

[Blue Lightning]

IMO, our monarchy is "un-Australian". I intend that by that descriptor to convey a very different meaning to that so often used by one of our former PMs ...

Constitutional monarchy here (and also in the UK in recent times), has conveyed the advantage that it has been a fundamental piece of architecture in a largely stable system of government that is more enlightened (despite its "Soap Dish"-like problems) than most people in the world are subjected to. It has that going for it, and that's quite a lot.

Here is a thoughtful and thorough discussion, by a conservative (and, as it happens, devout Catholic) of the reasons why we should be a republic, and how he thinks we should get there:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/st...te=capricornia

Or, you can read it here:
http://www.independentaustralia.net/...hy-a-republic/
http://www.independentaustralia.net/...ian-president/
http://www.independentaustralia.net/...f-a-president/
http://www.independentaustralia.net/...nd-the-states/
http://www.independentaustralia.net/...-constitution/

PS - I can assure you that he has been challenged on the preamble issue! "People of all religions" - please add in "and of none"

The Australian head of state should definitely not involve have a job description involving

Originally Posted by Darwinsbulldog

"Defender-of-imaginary-friends".

[owheelj]

Originally Posted by DanDare

I am a firm believer in having a random head of state, chosen by lottery from the entire population old enough to speak. Their powers should include commenting on the state of society, acting as a celebrity, being cheered by people in pubs and opening shopping malls. They should be pampered and live tax free at the public's expense for life, but have to give up the title itself at age sixty two and hand it over to another randomly chosen successor. They should not be allowed to wear pink on any clothing, even undergarments.

I think it's even plausible that we, in a sense, not have a head of state. The role is really only important when a government can't get legislation through parliament but refuses to hold a new election - something which I think has only ever happened once in our history. We could easily instil some kind of constitutional law where, if that happens, dissolving parliament is automatic. I don't think there are any genuine decisions that the GG has to make - anybody who can form a majority in the lower house wins government, and if nobody can within a set period, have another election. Why even waste time on money on what is largely an irrelevant position? Get the local mayor, celebrity, politician or cute child to cut ribbons and open things.

The only real reason I see for having a "president" or other head of state in a republic model is that minimising the changes to our constitution and parliamentary system probably makes it more likely to be accepted, and given the role is trivial, it's not worth campaigning against it.