jeannie

.......Carefull there buddy.....your gonna be 57 some day.......

TheCrone

Oh, come on, people, we tried a Republic once and didn't like it, remember?
I think you have to forget the individuals and look at the monarchy itself; personally I can't see an alternative that promises such stability in society.
And mama mia, if Australia had been a republic in the eighties, the corrupt but highly popular Alan Bond would have been elected to the Presidency by popular acclaim - and that would have been a fate worse than death for the country.

renth

It would have been no worse than Jaques Chirac or Silvio Berlusconi, both total crooks.

G'Day

Who cares?

banjo

Well....I for one am happy for them. Imagine being a part of a family that on one hand is expected to adhere to traditions, but to also be completely modern. EVERY little thing you do is instantly worldwide news. Who cares what they look like - let them be happy. Charles did what he thought he had to way back then....

It amazes me that so many refer to the royal family as free loading spongers. Just think of how much revenue they actually generate in terms of tourism. If there was no more royal family, all those castles etc. etc would (in time) lose their appeal. Money for maintenance would dry up and they would slowly fall to ruin and with that people would stop travelling to see these sights. Other than the pubs - what else has England got to offer to someone on holiday?

I couldn't think of anything worse than Tony Blair with more power than he has.....and quite apart from anything else the royal family are ordained by God..... So that settles it doesn't it?!

renth

What about the chateaux in France like Versailles?

anya4oz

I suspect Camilla probably doesn't give a t*ss what the press think of her & therefore won't go all doe-eyed and cutesy on us. Dunno about whether or not she will have to assume the Royal Wifey Mode of Saintliness if she does go in for guard-sh*gging though Time as they say will tell....

I think the rot set in years back when the Queen Mother started interfering in the young Royals' lives and telling them who they could/couldn't marry. She has a lot to answer for in setting up whole string of arranged and unhappy marriages. Charles clearly didn't want to marry Diana, but was forced into it to please his Gran. His worst crime is that he failed to use the 2 words f*** and o** at the right point & save a lot of people a lot of misery (especially the long-suffering British Public ).

It sounds a good idea. Who gets the Exec control though?

Also, how could we be sure that it wasn't open to corruption (as many seemingly 'democratic systems' are), and, given that most people in the UK claim they loathe Blair but still vote for him, how would we get round the problems of voter apathy & shortage of suitable candidates (have you thought of applying, Alistair?!)?

Some kind of presidential system does seem to be the answer, but it would only be a *better* alternative if the President was more accountable to the people on a more short-term and enforceable basis, for example, with regular 'performance reviews' or votes of confidence to be held.

Cheers,
Anya.

anya4oz

Nah, Jeannie. It's a well known fact that all of us who frequent this forum are extremely attractive people, with amazing good looks and stunning physiques (that, or we've haggled out a great deal with a decent plastic surgeon )

Oh, and none of us are over 25, either.

Anya.

banjo

good point... Carcassone is also impressive. Maybe the French don't begrudge their tax francs going into the upkeep though.

kirsty&al

Hello,

The executive control could remain the same as it is today (in Oz and UK). The president of Ireland is just a figurehead and in that respect she is just like the Queen. She (the president) does not get involved in the running of the country; that is left to the parliament and the executive formed by the prime minister. The president is directly elected by the people.

The Irish system could be easily implemented in Oz and the UK. In Oz, the Queen of Australia could be deposed and the office of the Governor General could be changed to that of the president. In the UK, the Queen could again be deposed and a new office of president created with all the same constitutional powers of the Queen.

It is noteworthy that the Queen’s current power to disband parliament would be more effective under a president because the president would have the public’s mandate to use it. If the Queen ever needed to genuinely use this power I think an unholy mess would ensue. Although the use of this power did cause a hue and cry in Oz when used by GG Kerr against the Whitlam government, it did provide a clean process for the election of next government.

Regards
Alistair
PS: I'm not sure I can be a candidate in the UK at the moment.

gogdownunder

Since when did we need the permanently drunken representative of a foreign head of state to provide us with "a clean process for the election of next government." ??

hevs

Warwick castle
Stratford upon Avon
Boughton on the Water
Bath
The Cotswalds
Stone henge
The peak district
The lake district

I'm gonna stop now befoe i get homesick :scared:

Bordy

The road to Scotland.

hevs

YEP! just what the tourists wanna see, a load of gingers in pleated skirts chucking very big telegraph poles around.

Bordy

You can toss my caber anyday Hevs.