Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Well, we could appoint a commoner as head of state instead, and call them something like Lord Protector. It might upset the Irish a bit but the last one cost about a tenth of what we pay the royals so it’s not all bad.
It’s worth noting however that we tried it before, decided republicanism wasn’t for us, and brought back the monarchy after a mere 6 years. So maybe we just accept that as we already have a head of state with no real executive power (like Ireland or Germany), and we don’t want to replace him with one who has actual power (like France or the USA), we’re really no worse off as we are, and probably better as there’s absolutely no way a faded politician or sleb can get elected to the job this way.
|
You are being very silly. Going back to a time, nearly 400 years ago, when we still burnt witches at the stake for a comparison?
What you are not addressing is the moral failure of endorsing a monarchy. The wish to place an entitled, ultra wealthy, selected by birth, individual in a position where you are required/encouraged to literally be subservient to them, bowing in their presence. This is a point of principle: one man/woman is more equal than any other. The Americans got the right idea.
It really is a point of principle, not money and not imperial nostalgia. Some people voted for Brexit on principle, knowing that they, and the country, would be poorer but still were happy to do so. The whole thing, in the 21st century is an historical anachronism.