Reading this interesting thread there seems to be an overwelming case being made for a reformed monarchy, certainly one that removes any link to an established church. I remain convinced though that our system of goverment has evolved, by chance, to provide the most effective and secure system available. That is not to say it is perfect, and reducing the number in the aristocracy must be a priority. However, when compared with well known alternatives, and in particular the USA, I know which I prefer. The USA has just as many aristocrats, they are just called something different. I hate with a passion the way the USA organise their politics, which seems corrupt in the extreme and favours money over need. If that is republican democracy give me ours any day.

Believe it or not I do have sympathy with this position, but for me it is outweighed by the concerns I mentioned earlier in the thread. And in practical terms, I just cannot see how any reform that retained the monarchy, could break the connection with the church.

May I dare breaking into this interesting conversation to just say:
Comparing the UK monarchy (as it is) with republicanism is like comparing an eagle with the marine world.
The British system is very VERY similar to a participatory democratic republic, with only two exceptions:
- president instead of a monarch
- Church unlinked to the presidency
and let me say that presidency' cost is just a fraction of the cost to the taxpayer.

But.............the President is a political appointment. The advantage of our system is that the head of state is not.
We are all agreed (I think) that breaking the link with an established church is desirable.
I don't for one moment think that the cost is less. The 4 yearly presidential campaigns are hugely expensive. Then you have to factor in all the difficult to quantify benefits in tourist income. Get rid of the hangers on by all means by reducing most of the civil list, but keep the good bits!

Nooooo! In a participatory democratic republic the president covers just a representation role (like the Queen in the UK), i.e. he represents the Nation as a whole and he cannot interfere with the upper or lower house (parliament). He is guarantor of the constitution and represents the Country abroad for pure institutional matters[/quote]


No, you are confusing democratic with presidential republic!
In a democratic republic the president is elected by both houses (usually 75% of votes needed); national poll concerns presidential republics, like the US or France.

Thank you, peneasy.

Hmmm... Apart from the fact that any appointment of a politician to the top of the greasy pole would look like a right royal stitch-up and be virtually guaranteed to be heartily disliked by a large proportion of the populace, doesn't that go against the sort of democracy that Lifey is proposing? And furthermore, none of the main parties are proposing an end to the monarchy, so presumably do not want to appoint anyone to replace the Queen. Not if they themselves want to be re-elected anyway.

Let's see who Parliament have thought fit to act as impartial and non-political from their ranks..... Oh, yes! Gorbals Mick and John Bercow.....

How about Prescott? Lady Prescott would love the outfits!

No one is saying it would be easy, Nick, but this is a philosophical discussion so we do not need to have complete answers - or any answers.
Your sneering at all the unlikely people who could get the top job is fair enough - but do we get better from inherited charlies?
It also does not matter that no political party would have the courage or want to remove the monarchy.
I do.

I accept the clarification that your preferred type of republic would see a president with limited powers elected by the government. That clearly reduces the cost but such a person could be political, even if someone from the great and the good were selected, and as such we would lose the protection that we currently enjoy. The person chosen would depend upon who controlled the parliament. Imagine a situation in which, for reasons unknown, we have a parliament dominated by either right or left. Placing a puppet president could enable them to achieve things which the current system does not. I know it is all largely theretical and that the Queen has always signed off bills, and done what she has been asked, but that is maybe because it is known that anything extreme would be refused, so not attempted. Could we get a Hitler under our current system? Not very easily I think. If having a political president makes it even only a little more likely then I think the risk is not worth taking.
That is not to say I relish the prospect of "King Charles". Someone needs to shove bungs in all his orafices. Thats not the point, its the checks and balances of the system that concerns me.

I don't understand how the monarchy is a safeguard. Surely the PM/Government already (effectively at least) command the armed forces, so how does the Queen act as a safeguard? In dire straits, are the armed forces (or at least the Generals, etc) going to obey the Queen just because she is the Queen, even though they thought it was not the will of the people/Parliament?

Just for the sake of being helpful rather than pedant:

Still on condition of a participatory republic, the president DOES NOT depend from the head of Gov. Let me stress that his role is that to make sure that the Gov. legislates in compliance with the constitution. If not he can refuse to sign a law-project twice. If the Gov. goes under by a number of times (can't remember how many) the president can dissolve the Gov. and call new elections. (Constitution = rules set up by the people)


Not in a participatory dem. republic because of the governance system; too long to explain. Shortly, the constitutional court (made up of top magistrates not politicians) would block this eventuality because contrary to a participatory democratic republic

May I just invite you to trust the Humanist "Amsterdam Declaration" a bit more

You may also like to know that in Switzerland, where they have a regime of "direct democracy"
(like participatory dem. republic but less power for the parliament), people are called often to vote on important issues. One example: the parliament prospected two scenarios; if we do not raise taxes we'll have outcome (A) while if we do then we'll have outcome (B). Well, there have been cases in the past when citizens have indeed chosen outcome (B).
I must say, however, that CH is a small country where citizens have a high sense of belonging and a fair level of education in the average.

Oh. If it's just philosophical, then it doesn't matter then. I thought for a moment you were being practical.

Currently, I think we do. When we don't then the answer will change.

I'll watch out for you candidacy

Taking the last first:

I'm not surprised, really. Perhaps I should post when I'm less tired. What I was driving at was the scientific thought which arises from well-meaning thought, rather than willful false declarations. I was thinking of things like "everything must have a cause", or "where does goodness come from", "why are we here?", "If evolution is a theory, it's not a fact, right?" Maybe this is just further along a continuum, but I think it is less objectionable than the propogation of eg homeopathy, creationism or preaching that some god or other answers prayers.



Thanks for you wishes . I am inclined to think that the C of E's involvement with the state is part of the reason for it's weakness. It's power an influence is eveywhere decreasing, and for many, it is virtually not more than "nice and middle class". If the C of E remains as the Established Church, it may be that the genuine fear and dislike felt by a sizable proportion of the population for more Catholic, Jewish, Sikh or (especially) Muslim schools will loosen further the grip of any religious denomination on education and restrict the growth in more faith schools. I think we humanists can push for less religion in education whether or not the C of E is the Establishment church. As I've said before, I wouldn't defend the religious Establishment, but I do wonder if it reduces religious fervour.

I think the most important element is the support for religious tradition, which gives it a status it doesn't merit. I appreciate this goes against some of my thoughts in the above paragraph. Yes, I'd be pleased if Charlie didn't support homeopathy, but I think its promotion by commerce, the lack of regulation and general scientific ignorance is much more important. And, as humanists, this does not stop us from criticising homeopathy or Charlie's fondness for it.


It is IMO ludicrous to think that kids from the sink estates are most dispirited by the existence of the monarchy. Far more relevant, again IMO, is the perpetuation of the dependency culture and lack of hope and lack of role models. Could it be that Gordon Brown's well intentioned actions to help the most disadvantaged have instead reinforced their current state and made their escape more difficult? Your average chav is more likely to feel disadvantaged by not being able to be a rapper or marry a footballer. I don't think models of democratic government are uppermost in their minds. All these issues are more political and economic, and as such humanism can and should accept differing views, but I think we would have general agreement that we should not lie to kids about the supposed existence of any gods, heaven or hell.


Yes, we humanists have plenty to get on with, without worrying about the monarchy. Given the apparent popularity of especially the Queen and Prince William, I think republicanism is an impediment to more urgent progress within society.

Sadly, David, much as I reject the promised advantages of an elected presidency (which seems to have split in two...) I'm afraid I do not share your view of the monarchy as a bastion against extremism by virtue of its position in Government, only by force of personality of the current incumbent (which may not be to your liking). If an extreme right or left wing government were elected, apart from vague pronouncements to the people, the monarch would be powerless. The monarch has not signed off any bill since Queen Anne in 1806 (I think). Tony Blair scrapped the position of Lord Chancellor, more ancient and more senior than that of Prime Minister, without much consultion with anyone, including his Cabinet, Parliament and the Queen. If it suited the PM and was electorally popular, the monarchy would be gone.