Time for a Republic?

[Mr K]

Why are and the media (and we?) so obsessed with all this royal crap? There are so many bigger issues, cost of living, climate change, nhs, war in Ukraine.

Yet many papers and news channels, not just tabloids, keep leading with Harry's book and the latest Royal self-indulgent twaddle.
E.g. the Torygraph has led on it for several days, despite their commentators saying ignore Harry! Hypocritical or what? Trying to distract from the real issues going on the country maybe?

Just another example why this country is going down the pan.

I never used to be particularly a republican or royalist. Used to think on balance they were worth it to the country , but that time has gone. We'd be better off without them, particularly now the only worthwhile Royal has gone.

[GrimUpNorth]

President Fishi Rishi?????? Think I'd rather have acupuncture with 6" nails.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

President Fishi Rishi?????? Think I'd rather have acupuncture with 6" nails.

Good point, maybe we could have a separate president/pm like Ireland.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

President Fishi Rishi?????? Think I'd rather have acupuncture with 6" nails.

Doesn't follow that we'd automatically need a president, other countries get by just fine with a pm in charge

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Doesn't follow that we'd automatically need a president, other countries get by just fine with a pm in charge

Such as?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Such as?

We could start a trend, others like South Africa get by with a president and no pm so why not vice versa.

[Ms NTL]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Such as?

Chile, Mexico, Switzerland and the United States have only president. No prime minister (googled it)

[Jaymoss]

How will it make a difference? I do think having a monarchy makes more than it costs

According to Brand Finance, the UK monarchy’s capital value as a business sits at £67.5bn, while its annual contribution to the UK economy was £1.76bn in 2017 alone. Meanwhile, for the taxpayer, the annual cost per head is roughly 1p a day.

https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/fea...%2012%20months.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

We could start a trend, others like South Africa get by with a president and no pm so why not vice versa.

There are two essential tasks performed at the top of any modern nation state - head of state and head of government. These positions may or may not be held by the same person and one or other of them may be partially or entirely ceremonial in nature, as executive functions may be located in one sphere or the other. Exactly what you call the roles is a secondary issue. Kim Jong Un is styled ‘Supreme Leader’ rather than ‘king’ but nonetheless he is a hereditary monarch with absolute power not unlike some former European kings (notably in France, and that ultimately didn’t end well for them). The powers of the President of the USA are not unlike those of a British constitutional monarch of the 18th century, though they are defined by a written constitution rather than a millennium of tradition and precedent.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

We could start a trend, others like South Africa get by with a president and no pm so why not vice versa.

And how many of them are non-political in nature and would fit in with our current system of having a Parliament.

Having different Executive and Legislative branches of government would mean a big upheaval and shift in power.

I do wish the media would just ignore Mr & Mrs Bratt.
However, just because some spoilt brat, full of his own (apparent) self importance, is whinging about how "poorly" he was treated, I dont really think we need big changes to the way the country functions.

Originally Posted by Paul

I do wish the media would just ignore Mr & Mrs Bratt.
However, just because some spoilt brat, full of his own (apparent) self importance, is whinging about how "poorly" he was treated, I dont really think we need big changes to the way the country functions.

We talking about Harry or Boris?

Originally Posted by Paul

I do wish the media would just ignore Mr & Mrs Bratt.
However, just because some spoilt brat, full of his own (apparent) self importance, is whinging about how "poorly" he was treated, I dont really think we need big changes to the way the country functions.

Harry is giving out intimate details of the inner goings on of an institution of the sort that is very rarely seen or heard. There’s no way they’re going to ignore it, especially not when there’s a market for it.

As for his self importance, well there we disagree - he’s suffered serious childhood trauma (divorce, death of a parent, public glare, weight of expectation and a frequently distant father). No amount of nice dinners or palaces can remedy that. He has needed, and has clearly not had, serious input from mental health professionals.

What we’re seeing now is the self-destructive behaviour of an adult with unresolved juvenile trauma. If he’d grown up in depravation the manner of his self-destruction would probably have been drugs and crime. A ‘respectable’ middle class upbringing would probably have helped keep a lid on overt bad behaviour but it might eventually have manifested itself in a series of abusive adult relationships. As it is, his tendencies have been kept locked away for as long as he was within the family fold or away on military service and under military discipline. Now he’s married to someone with a purely Hollywood-inspired outlook, you see the results. Not that this is Megan’s fault; just that his marriage to an American actress inevitably moulds the way in which his damaged psyche finds voice.

These are all generalisations of course but this is what happens to the children of broken, abusive homes, time and time again.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Why are and the media (and we?) so obsessed with all this royal crap? There are so many bigger issues, cost of living, climate change, nhs, war in Ukraine.

Yet many papers and news channels, not just tabloids, keep leading with Harry's book and the latest Royal self-indulgent twaddle.
E.g. the Torygraph has led on it for several days, despite their commentators saying ignore Harry! Hypocritical or what? Trying to distract from the real issues going on the country maybe? .

As long as the public are interested it is clickbait heaven for the media. It will continue until the public lose interest.

Originally Posted by Chris

As for his self importance, well there we disagree - he’s suffered serious childhood trauma (divorce, death of a parent, public glare, weight of expectation and a frequently distant father). No amount of nice dinners or palaces can remedy that. He has needed, and has clearly not had, serious input from mental health professionals.

I am not a Republican but one of the better arguments for it is for the family itself. The institution really seems to do a number on many of them, Prince Harry is far from the first Royal that has struggled with the role and the attention that comes with it.

They're typically thought of as being incredibly privileged but it's a weird privilege where you get all the wealth you'll ever need but your life has been decided for you, you have to perform to the whims of an entire nation and it Government while all your transgressions are national news.