At school we were told that the ultimate function and purpose of the monarchy was to prevent some petty little political upstart or would-be dictator from seizing power. History shows this to be a largely ineffectual safeguard - witness the ease with which that bunch of self-confessed crooks and accomplished halfwits who run the EU have taken over 'Great' Britain, without the slightest sign of action by the queen to prevent it!
2006-11-27 20:37:13 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
An elected head of state would be ideal. But personally i'd appoint the chuckle brothers as joint rulers, at least we'd have a laugh!
2006-12-01 00:33:29 · answer #1 · answered by isthisinuisetoo 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It certainly wouldn't be anyone in this government.
It seems as though the Queen has very little say in the day to day running of the country,she is only the figure head for papers and currency,and she must abide by what has been written.
It would cripple this country,if the monarchy was abolished.
I believe she could do great work,if she was left alone to read papers as they are written,and not reworded as not to offend.
Over the past few years,i have felt that the government had already taken this action,as we no longer seem to be a `Great` Britain,but one who's been dictated too.
2006-11-28 08:43:27 · answer #2 · answered by nicky dakiamadnat600bugmunchsqig 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You were brainwashed at school. The majority of countries do not have a monarch and they function as well, if not better than the UK. Apologists for the Monarchy are always harping on about how essential it is. If it is so essential why is it also said that it has no power? And you should also remember that the bad behaviour of dictators pales into insignificance when compared to the unrestrained power of the Monarchy at its height. Anyone appointed to the office of head of state would be voted in (as is usual in a democracy) and would serve a term of office rather than be invested with, apparently, the god given dictatorial right to rule with powers transmitted by birth and not merit.
2006-11-28 10:43:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Maybe it would be more democratic if there was NO Head of State - otherwise you are more or less replacing like with like - but an institution like Parliament with elected members could (and does in the UK) run the country regardless of the presence of the Monarch - who is now merely a figurehead in the UK. Don't blame the Queen for the power of the EU - that's down to this government and recent predecessors
2006-11-27 20:41:38 · answer #4 · answered by big pup in a small bath 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
While some people believe democracy requires no head of state, may i remind them that every country has a head of state, if not a monarch a president. Therefore i think the monarchy is not there as protection, rather a limit, i.e Blair can't get above himself to the degree Bush has in the US. Forcing democracy rather than a dictatorship.
2006-11-28 09:55:20 · answer #5 · answered by jb 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The queen cannot stand up to either the EU or a bad UK government as she has no legitimacy. The powers she has would cease to be theoretical if we had a head of state who was chosen by a more legitimate means than accident of birth. As to the kind of person, I have no names of mind but someone with gravitas with a long record of public service and understanding of the constitution, like a retired general or senior judge.
2006-11-28 01:32:06 · answer #6 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Gerry Adams With Martin McGuinness as Prime Minister
2006-11-29 08:19:38 · answer #7 · answered by mickladd 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I personally still feel a lot safer with the Queen, imagine trusting Tony Blair for everything! Or any politician at that. I want to keep the Royal Family, I think we need them far more than we realise.
2006-11-30 05:48:28 · answer #8 · answered by floppity 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If we had to abolish the monarchy then I would appoint Queen Elizabeth as Elizabeth Windsor as the head of state...
2006-12-01 10:13:47 · answer #9 · answered by sarch_uk 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would probably appoint Noel Edmonds. He always keeps a level head on Deal or No Deal and offers good advice and sensible suggestions to the contestants.
I think he would make an excellent monarch, athough he'll have to get rid of some of those dodgy shirts.
2006-11-27 20:41:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋