CHAPEL END CHARLIE

All scenarios are by their very nature 'invented' to some extent my friend, and the very fact that our consitution has proven to be so very stable for such a extremly long time is the very point I've been labouring to make for quite a while now. But I'm glad you are at last coming around to my point of view. But history shows we present a hostage to fortune every time we say something can never happen - never say never.

Well Comrade Verbal let me paint you a picture of one possible (if very unlikely) scenario that neither you, nor I, might like very much. In a few years time some national emergency arises & the government of the day decides that the General Election due to be held in the next few years would be a unwarranted distraction from the urgent business of addressing the issue. So the Prime Minister & his cabinet, using their large parliamentary majority, force a Bill through a reluctant House of Commons suspending the democratic process for a unspecified period. The House of Lords rejects this bill in its entirety, but after much toing & froing the government forces the legislation through employing the provisions of the Parliament Act 1949. To become law the Queen needs to grant her 'Royal Assent' before this egregious piece of legislation can come into force. But Queen Elizabeth ever mindful of her sacred Coronation Oath to "govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland according to their respective laws and customs" decides to withhold her consent - and quite rightly so in my view. In the midst of the ensuing grave constitutional crisis, mass civil disorder breaks out & the government calls upon the Army to intervene. In this crisis situation that unimportant & strictly 'ceremonial' oath you (& Sandy 666) dismiss so very glibly suddenly becomes a crucial issue as the Army staff must decide who's side they are on. I say the oath of allegiance to the Queen now grants the generals the possibility at least of siding with her & protecting the British people from the actions of a unconstitutional government. The Government is now left with no choice but to resign & call a new election. We've been discussing fine points of constitutional practice for a while now, but behind all that nice theory lays a deeper truth that someone of your political leanings should understand I would have thought: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao Tse-tung In that at least the old despot was right for once.

As you point out the US armed forces take their orders from a politician who is also their Commander in Chief - The President of the United States. As you seem very concerned about constitutional safeguards so I would have thought you'd approve of the fact that our constitution does not give any one person quite that much power. Our Armed forces take their everyday orders from ministers but swear allegiance to the monarch, thus providing a possible additional safeguard against the threat of a unconstitutional dictatorship one day. Now in praticial terms the oath our armed forces take may not be a very important matter at this time - but who knows it might be in future. I must say it is of course glossly unfair to imply that this question of military oaths is a important mainstay of the argument re the constitution ! A subject I have commented on at some length on here. I feel it is worth mentioning nevertheless.

I do know that the car you want to trade-in is always suffering from a very bad case of "no one wants these anymore mate" while there will invariably be a long list of punters allegedly trying to buy the motor you are after. At least that's the same old story every car dealer I've ever known keep telling me.

In practice what do we mean by a sweeping statement like "swear allegiance to the country and its citizens" ? The Monarch is a actual person while nationhood is a abstract concept, the collective will of which is difficult to know. If a soldier is told by his officers that the country wants him to drive his Challenger II Main Battle Tank onto Parliament Square and point its 120mm cannon at the House of Commons and turf those uppity politicians out of there, then without a Monarch to contradict that order how is the soldier supposed to react ? Can of worms.

In reality a Prime Minister and his cabinet can remove a monarch alright, as the sad story of Stanley Baldwin and Edward VIII shows. How do we remove a elected British President midterm if he proves to be a serious problem ? As he is in office as a direct result of the will of the people (as express in a free election) you could say only the British people should have the power to remove him. So that's yet another election then, or do we let the new Supreme Court with its bench of unelected judges impeach him ? Or something else entirely maybe ? This is the problem with ditching a settled constitution for something that isn't thought through. You are opening up a can of worms that's probably best left back in the fridge.

What is the job and what qualifications do you need to do it ? I suppose our Head of State spends much of their time opening new hospitals etc, entertaining their foreign counterparts, conducting official state visits aboard, & engaging in charity work. HRH The Prince of Wales has spent a lifetime doing exactly that kind of thing, so in the light of that unparalleled level of 'on the job' training, I'm pretty hard pressed to think of anyone who could equal his experience. But if you have a alternate name in mind Pap, then let us know who and we can debate their merits. Although this essentially ceremonial function is the larger part of the Head of State's role in our constitution it's by no means their only responsibility. They must sign bills into law & open and close parliament. The monarch is perhaps one of the most well informed people in the nation with regards to what her government is up to at any one time - as the heavy daily burden of 'Red Boxes' which they must read will confirm. So when the Queen conducts audiences with her Ministers "at which time her Majesty may consult, encourage, and warn them" she does so with the inestimable advantages of speaking from both a fully informed & non partisan position. I presume that the elected head of state you call for will hold the position for a limited term only, now compare that to Queen Elizabeth who has been doing this job since Winston Churchill was last in power. The electoral process is often no more infallible than the hereditary one alas. Unlike Queen Elizabeth an elected British President could be a powerful politician, in some ways more powerful that the Prime Minister perhaps. If the wrong person ever gets the job then we could be in for a dangerous constitutional crisis one day, the like of which this nation has thus far been spared. Without the monarch as Head of State who do you want the armed forces to swear allegiance to - the President or the Prime Minister ? For all the inherent difficulties a monarchy presents, one advantage it does have is that our non party political monarch brings to the job a level of impartiality and experience no elected replacement could possibly equal.

I see more stories in the press today to the effect that now that we've given up on Hooper we are set to tempt Huddersfield with a offer of c £5m for Rhodes. This kinda sounds plausible as there is little or no doubt we are in the market for a quality striker - but if we'd signed every player we've been linked with we'd have a squad of 100 by now.

You know what they used to say about the US Presidency during the height of the cold war ? The very fact that you want the job so very much proves that you're mentally unbalanced enough to mean you should never have it. Some of us rather like the fact that our head of state occupies that position not because they harbour the iron sense of ambition required to climb that high on the greasy pole of politics, but because they're born to it. The queens father never wanted to be king but overcame his personal difficulties and played his part in leading the nation to the greatest victory in all its long history. It's hard to explain but I feel there's something worth preserving with in that. Few (if any) of us really believe anymore that God has appointed the monarch and that he/she maintains a semi divine status on earth, that question has been a bone of contention between the church and the monarchy for ages past. Surely all people of good faith can agree that the fact that our monarchy is reduced to what is a largely ceremonial role is right and fitting in the modern world. Real power now lies with the people as expressed though their parliamentary democracy. To answer your question I see no reason in principle why any of us might not be head of state in a brave new British Republic, if that was what our people really wanted. But as far as we can tell they really don't want that republican future (as yet anyway) and I can't think of a single good reason that a republic should be imposed upon them against their wishes just because some don't like the principle of a hereditary monarchy. Monarchy is a part of our national identity & our common history, part of what makes us what we are. I say a clear majority of the British people would elect to keep it that way. It is incumbent upon those who wish to change our constitution to persuade the British people that what they offer is better than what we have. 'Good luck with that' as they say.

Pap, One thing my poor amateur study of history has shown me is that no one ever fully understands the implications of history. Indeed, you might almost say its always too early to write the history of anything, as new academic research constantly proves that what were once felt to be established truths, turn out to be anything but. I'm intrigued by the commonly held assumption you repeat that in the fullness of time, if & when, Charles succeeds to the throne that he's bound to make a mess of it. Funnily enough there was a interesting programme on TV this very week dealing with the often scandalous life of Prince Bertie (Edward VII) and how his parents (Victoria & Albert of course) were seeming convinced that he too, just like our Prince Charles, would be a disaster as king - only for him to ultimately turn out to be wildly regarded as a successful and very popular monarch. Of course he had the advantage of living in a era before the modern media, internet access, and 24/7 TV news coverage existed. So we'll have to wait and see how Charles does, but I wouldn't be the least surprised to see history repeating itself. It frequently does.

Now, now, be fair Sergei. The Royal Family have stifled all his 'social mobility' and prevented him from achieving the high status position his many talents undoubtedly deserve - probably lecturing in early Greek democracy to 10 year olds. Although the unending stream of verbiage Verbal graces the forum with might tend to suggest otherwise, the detestable Windsor's have even taken steps to curtail his freedom of speech apparently, I expect MI5 are monitoring his every move. We can only hope Queen Elizabeth doesn't pay her fiver and start persecuting him further on here .......

I more than happy to discusses any question of history with you (or anyone else on here) at any time of your choosing, but the prospect seems unpromising because if you really think that 'western democracy' was founded (in ancient Greece of course) on the principle of equal rights and responsibilities for all then you display a breathtaking ignorance of your subject. I suggest you do some research on the real history of Greek democracy before making a even bigger fool of yourself. You see some unbridgeable contradiction between democracy and constitutional monarchy that I must reject and that the history of this nation (and many others by the way) proves to be utterly false. Democracy & constitutional monarchy can, and do, co-exist perfectly well together as longs as all the necessary safeguards are in place. Thus your entire premise is nothing more than a house of cards of a intellectual standard that I would expect to see in some adolescent debating society. I fear it is beyond your understanding but please try to understand how very difficult it is to sensibly debate the constitution with people such as yourself who seemingly have little or no grasp on how it really evolved and what it actually is today. No one in their right mind still believes that the Royal Family were appointed by God Almighty to rule over us in perpetuity, to suggest so is silly. The sheer irony that you describe our constitutional monarchy as archaic while coming across as a outdated class warrior the like of which I though had died a unlamented death decades ago is no doubt lost on you. If that nasty chip on your shoulder gets any deeper then I fear for the arm. Nevertheless, I will conclude by thanking you. Before reading your contributions to this thread I had been only 75% sure that we should retain the monarchy - but now thanks to you I'm perfectly sure of it. In that sense alone you do provide a useful service on here.

Well I've spent a lifetime studying the history of this great nation - perhaps I'm too in love with my subject to be perfectly objective - but one word I'd never associate with the long and remarkable history of the British monarchy & constitution is 'static'. You can read our history as one long dynamic struggle to contain the power of those who once wielded so much of it - be they of Royal blood or not. From long before Magna Carta, to long after Oliver Cromwell's doomed search for Leviathan, the strength of our constitution is not that it is persevered in some pickled state utterly incapable of change, but the polar opposite of that false depiction, my truth is that our constitution is a constantly evolving beast shaped by the remorseless flow of history. We are today in many ways a very different nation to that of 1066, 1645, or 1900 even. With one very brief (unsuccessful) interlude back in the 17th century, the one constant throughout has been that the British people have consistently seen a need for monarchy as an inherent part of how they see themselves, their nation, and their place in the world. I certainly don't claim to know the future, perhaps one day all the institutions we know so well today will be long gone, but I'll hazard a guess that no one reading this today will live long enough to see the end of the British Monarchy. As in all things' Tempus Omnia Revelat.

You'd think so wouldn't you, but I was being seriously told only a few weeks ago that he was putting in performances that merited a disgraceful 2 (or 3) out of 10 mark. Which just goes to show that we have a small minority of SFC fans who don't know their Arsenals from their Alloha Athletics.

Although I disagreed with almost everything here, in specific reference to your concluding sentence you are indeed correct. Not only do I not believe that "every British person is born equal" it is also my belief that any grown adult who is still naive enough to really believe that such a state has/does/could exist in any Human society is manifestly in urgent need of psychiatric help. Some of us are born to die as infants, others to endure into old age. Some come forth into the high summer of peace while others must freeze in the bleak midwinter of war. Many are destined for a lifetime of grinding poverty & hard labour, a fortunate few know fabulous wealth & idleness. This is the way of the world alas and if you really think that the Queen is somehow responsible for this or that messing about with the constitution is going to change anything then you and your shipmates are serving aboard a ship of fools.

Ah.... that's the beauty of the British Constitution my friend, it's both endlessly adaptable and quite indestructible. As for the supposed 'apathy' of the British people towards constitution affairs, I see no actual evidence provided to support this assertion, and it is my firm belief that the monarchy maintains a substantial level of support among the British people. But even if I were to accept your view for arguments sake, any sense of constitutional apathy would surely be the happy result of centuries of political stability that is the child of the very same constitution you wish to do away with. As I've said before, people blessed with a full measure of common sense tend not to attempt to mend things that aren't actually broken. Although this thread does tend to prove that common sense is an increasingly rare commodity.

Some highly amusing recent contributions, you can almost taste the bile ! But there still room for improvement, so can I please ask the Republican Party (MP's elected = 0) if they would be so kind as to get together in a small room and come up with some sort of consistent argument, as the 'scattergun' approach adopted so far makes it rather difficult to know which of the numerous incoherent arguments being put forward a chap is supposed to take seriously. Oh, while we're on the subject the forum still awaits any explanation as to why the great British public seem so stubbornly resistant to all this 'bin the constitution' malarkey. Ta very muchly

This is a very good point. The head of state should have no role in law or policy making as this is surely the preserve of an elected government. So with no meaningful manifesto to decide on we're left with a mere popularity contest with the winner being the best funded or most telegenic candidate. We're more than likely to end up with some ambitious celebrity or past-it politician. On the basis that you can't fix something that's not broken I think we're better off as we are thank you very much.

The USA is a young country with a founding history that rather precludes any constitutional role for the British monarchy ! If you rate the supposed benefits of republicanism so highly then presumably you would consider the United States to be an inherently better governed country than this old constitutional monarchy - but given the state of near paralysis US government frequently finds itself in as the executive and legislature become enmeshed in endless bouts of bitterly partisan warfare I would have thought any such hypothesis would be built on unsound foundations. Those calling for more democracy would do well to hear what the British people actualy have to say, every opinion poll (that I've ever seen anyway) has consistently shown that we would vote to retain the monarchy by a significant margin. So if you really want a better democracy then it might be a good idea to listen to the people ! But I do actualy understand that idealistic minds in a 5th form debating society might find our ways unsatisfactory. Away from the classroom in the real world however the UK has proven over time to be one of the most politically stable nations on earth, thanks in no small part to a unwritten constitution that has withstood the test of time. This is not the USA, and it certainly not bloody France, the House of Windsor has adapted adroitly to a ever changing world and that is why they have survived and prospered when so many other Royal dynasties have passed into history. Some say it must be better to be a citizen than a mere subject. I say there are millions of 'citizens' in this world tonight who will sleep in dread of a visit from the Secret Police, plenty of them would happily swap with us. On the hand I wouldn't swap Elizabeth Windsor for any failed politician, ambitious bureaucrat, or dubious 'celebrity' we might otherwise have in the job, and I'm more than happy to concede that becoming Head of State only because you happen to be born into it is of course gloriously anachronistic in this day and age .... I'm British so I rather like anachronisms.

If the United Kingdom were to arise out of the North Sea today steaming and boiling like some great steam powered submarine then we would not have to invent a royal family to be its head of state. But this is a old country with a history that shows that the last time it tried republicanism it didn't much like it. If we don't have a head of state who is above party politics then we must have a US style president who is both PM and Head of State - but the US constitution has a whole series of 'checks and balances' that limit the ammount of power any one person should hold. Absolute power corrupts absolutley. ln our system lots of power is held by people who are not elected - Judges, Policemen, Hospital heads ..etc and I can't really see that that is very much of a problem in all honesty. So if we accept that having a Head of State is a good idea then the choice boils down to the Royal Family or some past it politican/actor/Wayne Rooney and to be frank with her lifetime of on the job training, and a Cast Iron sense of duty to the nation I say that HM the Queen is the best person for the job.

No, the record shows it would make the square root of bugger all difference to anything - even if all this sum were to come out of public expenditure, which it is very unlikley to. Uk welfare state spending 2009-10 £1920m - every singe year Royal Yacht proposal........................60m - once every 30 or 40 years (£1 per person) Now if you have any decent argument to make as to how getting rid of the queen is going to make the livies of ordinary people in this country one iota better then you better make it - because I haven't seen one yet. In the meantime it all looks likes more chippy, knee-jerk anti royalism to me.

As I see it many (but not all) republican views are rooted more on a sense of envy and opposition to what they perceive as privilege, rather than any true interest in the dry subject of constitutional reform. Indeed the utter lack of interest in the recent referendum into PR is suggestive of how concerned we really are re the constitution. So yes, many do come across as rather 'chippy' to be honest.

Both are mean spirited surely. The difference is that cutting our huge welfare benefit bill is a unavoidable necessity because of the state of the economy, while the only reason we no longer have a Royal Yacht is not because we can't afford it as a nation - small change in the grand scheme of things - but because politicians are afraid of upsetting anti-royalists with a chip on (both) shoulders like you. So that would be a cowardly and mean spirited decision then.

I recored an old 'Columbo' episode at the weekend and I was almost surprised to be reminded of just how wonderful a series it was in its prime. As a detective drama there's so much wrong with it I suppose; it's formulaic to a fault, Columbo 'gets his man' with remorseless regularity every episode, and the so called evidence he unearths to prove his case would I reckon (very often) never stand up in a real court of law without a convenient confession attached - but frankly I just don't give a damn. Peter Falk is of course superb as Columbo, but a large part of the shows appeal is that he always manages to attract a stellar cast of the most celebrated actors of the age to guest star for him. The episode I saw (Identity Crisis) had both Leslie Nielson and Patrick McGoohan in it - how fantastic is that - and I can recall Johnny Cash, Ray Milland, Roddy McDowell, Donald Pleasance, Robert Culp and half a hundred other great names who featured in this long running series. For me, nearly as entertaining as the oh-so clever scripts and wonderful acting is seeing 1970's cars (the cars I grow up with) back in their prime - in this case the villainous McGoohan swanning around in a gorgeous met green Citroen SM 'Maserati'. A motor I'd be tempted to commit a fiendish Columbo style murder to get my hands on. Great nostalgia television form what is arguably its golden age.

Indeed, although Antonio was possibly our first Shakespeare signing I would have thought. Although he came from Reading rather than Venice.