Talk Morgan Forums Community The Malvern Arms GOD SAVE THE KING

Yes well said Barry I fully agree

Divine right of Kings hasn't been a thing here since the 1600s .... James 1 brought that with him from Scotland as a current issue and it didn't take ... it was one of the factors in the English civil war and didn't survive ... it was considered old-fashioned even then by most.

The head of the church thing is a can of worms that Henry V111 opened ... not really an issue and modern monarchs fully acknowledge the status of other religions .... what happens if a future monarch decides to convert to Islam or Bhuddism? (other religions are available) will be one of the things that will be dealt with as part of the evolution of our democracy ... there's nothing intrinsic in the joining of King/Queen and church they can be split if needed and the situation go back to pre-Henry times ... it was only done for reasons of dynastic succession even back then ... and the relationship between monarchy and parliament is a very different picture now.

K

They would have to abdicate, the King/Queen of England has to be a Protestant.

Not just any Protestant, the Monarch must be a legitimate Protestant descendant of Sophia of Hanover and must, in addition, be in Communion with the Church of England, that is a Confirmed Member of the Church of England (Not Scotland or Ireland, sorry) and must swear to preserve the established Church of England and the established Church of Scotland. The Sovereign must also promise to uphold the Protestant succession.

Room for modernisation there, I feel...

Rovert ... Peter ... Indeed ... but that all goes with the Henry V111 induced 'King as head of church' thing ... reversion to the traditional pre-Henry model would sweep all that clutter with it ... currently not a problem as the present incumbent feels no conflict in this area ... none of these things are set in stone and can be changed if the need arises without disolution of the monarchy (in the same way they were set up) The fact the Churches of Scotland and Ireland go about their business without a Royal hand on the tiller already surely sets a precedent if one proves to be required. I could see this area as one of the 'modernisations' planned internally by the mornarchy

Still looking for reasons an elected head would have practical benefits in the current Constitutional Monarchy/Parliamentary environment.

K

For clarity .... I am just promoting discussion ... this isn't an area we spend much time thinking about in the UK (maybe an indicator ... if it was as dysfunctional as the Republicans claim then we probably would be, out of necessity) ... easy to just accept one side or the other without a whole lot of actual justification beyond dogma.

According to the Royal Marine forums I am on the Marines on street lining duty where the horse went into the barrier have reported that they heard a loud hooter sound just before the horse spooked and that there were protesters in the area shouting anti Monarchy chants. So who knows.

When reading the comments I am always reminded of a few sayings that have a tendency to ring true:

Be careful what you wish for. lest it come true.

The grass is always greener on the other side.

We have a system that has worked and still works very well (that's why we question it's relevance) once gone that is it, Cromwell had that problem so brought the Monarchy back rather quickly. The King has clearly stated a changing of the Monarchy so let's give him a chance and see what that entails. I fear the moaners of today will still be the moaners of tomorrow they are just not happy and will always complain.

As far as I can judge there isn't a republic that has an office of the head of state that is more effective than our quirky, hereditary one. It may not be democratic or populist, but it has worked well enough for neigh on 1000 years.

Another truism: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The UK Monarchy is not broken, it just needs a bit of "Car SOS" treatment over the next 20 years.

Exactly so he is not actually the true decendant of the first in line as Catholics were banned. The whole thing is a farce & they use nostalgia and the belief that the Royals are superior to keep it going.

Our monarchy works. It is also inextricably bound up with our unwritten constitution, system of government, administration, military and established church. Untangling all of that and replacing it with an elected president would be to open a huge can of worms.

Also, the monarchy does not belong to the "efficient" part of government but to the symbolic and sovereign part of it. Government exercises powers derived from the monarch and in his name, in conjunction with Parliament, but the monarch no longer personally exercises those powers. He has a veto over legislation which has never been used by any monarch but is the ultimate safeguard should Parliament try to do something unconstitutional or wholly immoral. He is above politics and can therefore unify the nation. An elected president could not do this. Even if an elected president is not a failed politician (they usually are) the fact that they have been elected makes them a partisan figure, divisive for those who have not elected them.

Our monarchy also exercises considerable soft power on the part of the nation. So many presidents are unknown figures on the world stage - no more than mere functionaries. The King of England is not. He is also our chiefest and most formidable diplomat - as he showed recently on his state visit to Germany.

I have heard some criticisms (not here) but in the comments sections on newspapers that the king looked glum during his coronation. King Charles was required to look solemn during the ceremony. His mother also looked glum if you view the newsreel of her coronation. It was a religious service consecrating a sacerdotal monarchy (one of the few left in the world - most other Kings are simply required to swear a constitutional oath). To smile would have looked inappropriate even mocking. To criticise him for looking glum betrays a misunderstanding of the occasion. He brightened up once he was outside again.

The point to note with the king (and the late queen) is that they understand they don't have to enjoy all aspects of their role. I should think they have good days and bad days on the job like the rest of us. But they have to do it out of duty - they are raised to do it out of duty. Most of the time, when the king is out and about meeting people, he smiles a lot and seems to genuinely enjoy it.

"Duty" not "fun" has always been the most important word in the lexicon of a British monarch. It's notable that republicanism gained most traction under Victoria when she hid herself from public sight and refused to do her duty. Edward VIII had to go mainly because his sense of duty was totally inadequate. Duty is very much out of fashion now - we are expected to prioritise fun and an obsession with the self. The monarch exemplifies and holds up the old concept of duty before self. Woke "thinkers" and millennials lack the depth to understand this.

No doubt an elected president would have a sense of duty. But I'm not convinced it would run as deep. It's ingrained in a king who was raised, from birth, to perform that role and educated in the solemn duties of kingship.