Oprah - anybody staying up to watch?

[Mike Sales]

There are other slebs whose doings generate vast realms of useless nonsense, so that may be their main function!

The other slebs aren't often directing their ire/fire at the slebs who could potentially be heads of state of our countries, though.

But the monarch in GB is a purely ceremonial role, and has no real importance in government. I hope so, anyway.
It does seem as if their function is to provide many pages of copy for the newspapers, and a diversion from issues of real importance. I suppose they are doing that rather well. This is the same function as, for instance, the Kardashians, of whom I have even less knowledge.

[Bonefishblues]

There are other slebs whose doings generate vast realms of useless nonsense, so that may be their main function!

The other slebs aren't often directing their ire/fire at the slebs who could potentially be heads of state of our countries, though.

But the monarch in GB is a purely ceremonial role, and has no real importance in government. I hope so, anyway.
It does seem as if their function is to provide many pages of copy for the newspapers, and a diversion from issues of real importance. I suppose they are doing that rather well. This is the same function as, for instance, the Kardashians, of whom I have even less knowledge.

Stamps. Don't forget the stamps.

[Psamathe]

All makes you wonder why the Royal Family is exempt from equalities legislation. Public sector the government, charities, major companies and political parties etc. all have to comply but Royal Family (funded by the taxpayer) exempt. And given how they have the responsibility to scrutinise our legislation and as has recently emerged exploit that for their own personal benefit, how come they are exempt from equalities law ..... (Equality Act, introduced in 2010)

Ian

[Ben@Forest]

I would go a little further and say that we would be better off without them.

I wonder who'd be happy with whatever our replacement for the head of state would be? Germany has a president who is almost always a former politician who acts above 'day to day' politics when in office. He (there has never been a 'she' yet) is voted for by other politicians in a secret ballot. In the past they've had a former Nazi (really - joined the SA and then the Nazi party).

Looking at politicians who'd be in the right age group and history and who were never Prime Minister (German Chancellor), which seems to be a feature of the German system, our current president would be someone like William Hague, or David Miliband, or Esther McVey, or Sajid Javid (though all possibly a bit young); maybe Peter Mandelson, or Chris Patten, or David Davis, or David Blunkett?

[Mike Sales]

I would go a little further and say that we would be better off without them.

I wonder who'd be happy with whatever our replacement for the head of state would be? Germany has a president who is almost always a former politician who acts above 'day to day' politics when in office. He (there has never been a 'she' yet) is voted for by other politicians in a secret ballot. In the past they've had a former Nazi (really - joined the SA and then the Nazi party).

Looking at politicians who'd be in the right age group and history and who were never Prime Minister (German Chancellor), which seems to be a feature of the German system, our current president would be someone like William Hague, or David Miliband, or Esther McVey, or Sajid Javid (though all possibly a bit young); maybe Peter Mandelson, or Chris Patten, or David Davis, or David Blunkett?

We could raffle the job. It is odds on a random citizen would behave better than this lot.
I would do the job myself for a fraction of the salary!

[Psamathe]

I would go a little further and say that we would be better off without them.

I wonder who'd be happy with whatever our replacement for the head of state would be? Germany has a president who is almost always a former politician who acts above 'day to day' politics when in office. He (there has never been a 'she' yet) is voted for by other politicians in a secret ballot. In the past they've had a former Nazi (really - joined the SA and then the Nazi party).

Looking at politicians who'd be in the right age group and history and who were never Prime Minister (German Chancellor), which seems to be a feature of the German system, our current president would be someone like William Hague, or David Miliband, or Esther McVey, or Sajid Javid (though all possibly a bit young); maybe Peter Mandelson, or Chris Patten, or David Davis, or David Blunkett?

I have the impression (maybe incorrectly) that the post of "President" in many respects is either elected ineffectual overseer or replaces the functions of our PM. everybody known who Macron is but how many know the name of the French PM? (even when I lived there in the days of Sarkozy I didn't see or hear much about/from Fillon.

In many respects I don't see it actually matters a lot. If you look at the UK, from a governance and laws perspective if the Royal Family ended only difference is they would not be adjusting legislation for their personal benefit but otherwise ending their ceremonial role signing off your just reduces paperwork. At present our equivalent of "President" ("the Queen") should serve no function in determining legislation/governance.

And if we have an elected president then the role of PM would decline in importance and we would not have to fund palaces and castles and no end of taggers on through an extended family.

Ian

[merseymouth]

Hi Bonebluefish, Does that mean you want "Kardashians Stamps"????? I very idea triggers nausea in this delicate stomach!
Couldn't imagine having to lick the things. MM

[mjr]

Looking at politicians who'd be in the right age group and history and who were never Prime Minister (German Chancellor), which seems to be a feature of the German system, our current president would be someone like William Hague, or David Miliband, or Esther McVey, or Sajid Javid (though all possibly a bit young); maybe Peter Mandelson, or Chris Patten, or David Davis, or David Blunkett?

I think most of those you mention rose too high, becoming leader of the opposition or occupying a great office of state and often quite divisively. I suspect a better idea may be either looking at the list of Father/Mother of the House:
Peter Bottomley, Ken Clarke, Gerald Kaufman, Peter Tapsell, Alan Williams, Tam Dalyell, Bernard Braine, John Parker, George Strauss, Robin Turton, Rab Butler...

or searching for "best prime minister we never had":
Alan Johnson, Michael Hesetine, Ken Clarke, Hazel Blears, Barbara Castle, Evan Durbin, Iain Macleod, Tony Benn...

and removing those who held too many of Home/Foreign/Treasury or held them too long (I've removed the most obvious ones).

I have the impression (maybe incorrectly) that the post of "President" in many respects is either elected ineffectual overseer or replaces the functions of our PM.

One's ineffectual overseer is another's peacemaker, but in general I think that fair. I wonder if it hinges on whether the executive (cabinet in the UK) is appointed in practice by the executive leader (as in the UK and Germany) or by the president (as in France and USA).

[Ben@Forest]

I think most of those you mention rose too high, becoming leader of the opposition or occupying a great office of state and often quite divisively. I suspect a better idea may be either looking at the list of Father/Mother of the House:
Peter Bottomley, Ken Clarke, Gerald Kaufman, Peter Tapsell, Alan Williams, Tam Dalyell, Bernard Braine, John Parker, George Strauss, Robin Turton, Rab Butler...

or searching for "best prime minister we never had":
Alan Johnson, Michael Hesetine, Ken Clarke, Hazel Blears, Barbara Castle, Evan Durbin, Iain Macleod, Tony Benn...

and removing those who held too many of Home/Foreign/Treasury or held them too long (I've removed the most obvious ones).

Possibly but the current German president, Frank-Walter Steinmeier (CDU) was the Foreign Secretary, the Vice Chancellor, and Leader of the Opposition. I think the major difference is their candidates may have spent time in the regional parliaments too, or in a big international institution (like George Robertson became head of NATO). I think there's less 'coming back' in British politics though - e.g. it's likely we'll never see Jo Swinson again.

[thirdcrank]

... We could raffle the job. ....

That's what happened in one of the early Greek (republics) but you can only really do it with an executive president rather than a figurehead if the country is very small. In our present circumstances, you may be underestimating the value a lot of people place on things like investitures and even Buck Ho garden parties.

[Mike Sales]

... We could raffle the job. ....

That's what happened in one of the early Greek (republics) but you can only really do it with an executive president rather than a figurehead if the country is very small. In our present circumstances, you may be underestimating the value a lot of people place on things like investitures and even Buck Ho garden parties.

The raffle was a bit of a joke, but also a riff on the arbitrary nature of choosing our ceremonial leader by the raffle of genetics.
Most of us do not accept the divine nature of kingship, just as we have now dispensed with the idea that there is something evil about homosexuality.
It is a long time since we believed that an accident of birth should give the monarch any real power, and I think there are real disadvantages in the royal mummery.
The views of the population evolve.

[kwackers]

The views of the population evolve.

Anyways, about brexit...

[thirdcrank]

... The raffle was a bit of a joke, but also a riff on the arbitrary nature of choosing our ceremonial leader by the raffle of genetics.
Most of us do not accept the divine nature of kingship, just as we have now dispensed with the idea that there is something evil about homosexuality.
It is a long time since we believed that an accident of birth should give the monarch any real power, and I think there are real disadvantages in the royal mummery.
The views of the population evolve.

Many a true word spoken in jest.

I don't think our monarch has any real power in a formal sense. One real disadvantage, which I don't think anybody has mentioned here is the way that all the pomp and circumstance socialises people into believing that our way is best. eg State Opening of Parliament.

I'll state an interest, in that I was eight at the time of the coronation and it's one of the strongest memories of my primary school age childhood: over a year in preparation for the big day; conquest of Everest reported to coincide; huge outside broadcast on the actual day and crowding round somebody else's telly to see it. One of my memories is of a seemingly endless parade of Commonwealth soldiers marching to "Soldiers of the Queen." Some of that won't be from the telly but Pathé newsreels at the pictures, in the days we went more often.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhfxAyzfn2E

Look out for Queen Salote of Tonga at about 35 seconds. "Older readers" may remember the significance of that.

The event was so big that police from the length and breadth were seconded for route-lining. One of my older colleagues who portrayed himself as cynical was secretly proud to have been selected to be in the Leeds City Police contingent - like the Queen of Tonga, well over 6' tall . I say "secretly" but he was happy enough to recount the tale to me.

But you are right. The views of the population do evolve and there won't be another coronation like that one. And Harry seems to have given his whole raison d'être a shove towards its demise.

[al_yrpal]

I believe there have always been racists, anti gay folk and men who abuse women about, but, I believe there are fewer of them today than there were and those that are still around are careful to curb their predjudices. These things are not a growing problem, but a diminishing one thank goodness. As for the Green lady's suggestion for a 6pm curfew for men .....

Al

[Ben@Forest]

But you are right. The views of the population do evolve and there won't be another coronation like that one. And Harry seems to have given his whole raison d'être a shove towards its demise.

Such views seemed pretty universal after the death of Diana too. Then suddenly the Golden Jubilee was a far bigger success than expected, and then the marriage of William and Kate, the marriage of Harry and Meghan seemed to be the icing on the cake; any kudos from that may have been lost but where will be 4 or 5 years from now?

The other thing not to lose sight of is the Commonwealth. Largely ignored or treated as a sideshow here, it occupies more significance in many other countries. The most recent countries to join were Mozambique (1995) and Rwanda (2009). Neither country had any colonial link with Britain. Mozambique was a Portuguese colony, Rwanda was a colony of Germany, then Belgium and later had ties to France which it severed after the genocide, citing French support of the killings.

If the Commonwealth is so irrelevant, why are countries still keen to join it?