In 2012 the French will elect a president, the USA will elect a president, and Russia will elect a president. Who knows who we'll end up with.

Meanwhile the people of the commonwealth will be celebrating 60 years since, on 6th February 1952, Elizabeth II became Queen.

She will become the third longest serving head of state. Queen Victoria reigned for 63 years. The King of Thailand has served since 1946, making him the longest serving of all time.

Whether you are a republican (with a little 'r') or a monarchist, there are arguments to support the constitutional system that allows such stability. There are, of course, arguments against.

I say bless the old gal, and long may she reign. You might disagree.

(Luckily, for dissenters, we did away with hanging, drawing, and quartering a few years ago.)

With issue of sucession being an overpowering one, given the quality of the next in line

LOL, Bill, but at least we know who's next. Charlie has done good work through the Prince's trust and has endeavoured to harmonise relations in tricky areas of our inner cities. I think he has his mother's good sense of justice.

On the other hand we have no idea who will take over in Russia, the USA, and France. Scary stuff?

Charlie, as in: ”I want to be reincarnated as your tampon.” – Prince Charles to Camilla Parker Bowles?
Who cares really?

My comment wasn't specifically on Chuckie Cheese, more about the historical record of succession in "England" which has produced some remakably inept, and some cases unwilling, Heads of State.

The whole of the current next generations are certainly not particularly awe inspiring.

Scary? Not in the least.

Whoever wins in any of these places, will bring NO change...

That's right George, business as usual!

Reuters estimate the cost of USA's presidential election to be in excess of 6 billion USD. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/ ... ZX20110830

It seems an expensive procedure if there will be NO change. Maybe you mean no small change left in your trouser pockets?

Quite the contrary, my good man. Pocket change has been *all* that is left to a working individual at the end of the month for quite some time now...if they're lucky, that is...

Monarchies are the best choice. Case in point: countries in the Middle East that are not monarchies all went up in flames and have known many (civil) wars and other problems whilst those with monarchies appear to survive better.

An interesting comment, PeterNY. It is a shame they are not constitutional monarchs in the Arab world.

Britain was one of the first countries to have a republic (1649 to 1660). It was a disaster, especially for the people of Ireland. (This fact makes me wonder about RBS's comment about, "Who cares?" )

The idea of a head of state who is not part of government but to whom the government reports has distinct benefits over the head of state being the head of government. In fact, when Germany rebuilt its structure after the second world war it adopted a system where there is a President who is head of state with no political power and a Chancellor who is head of government.

I have never seen the benefits of the French system where the president is head of state and government. The current President doesn't even know when to be polite to people.

Democracy is not really a concern for most people: a good quality of life is. I would rather live in a totalitarian monarchy (Saudi Arabia) or technocracy (Singapore) that provides for enough income, personal safety and so on than a failed democracy (with rampant unemployment, non-affordable education, crumbling infrastructure, failed immigration policies, pocket lining bankers who get bailed out and so on).

The German Chancellor is like a Prime Minister in most democracies. Most of those democracies are multiparty based so consequently policies are typically more balanced than in bi-party democracies (e.g. USA, UK traditionally as well although that changed with the Liberal Democrats). A lot of countries are nominally democratic but in reality are one-party states (e.g. Russia, South Africa and so on) so those countries typically go to the dumps as well.

Democracies only work when you have a majority well educated population with limited income inequality and an absence of religious and ideological extremism. When those parameters do not exist or start failing the entire system collapses into chaos and disastrous governance (as evidenced in the US and EU). China is a good example of a one-party state that appears to have its show on the road.

Where do you think the Prince's Trust funds come from?
From land stolen by the rich from the poor, way back when.
I have absolutely no feelings where the UK and its monarchy are concerned.
It was the Brits that stole the land from the Irish farmers when the likes of Cromwell & Co were in power, with approval of the monarchy.
It was the Brits that caused the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Ireland during the famine, and forced a similar number of people to leave their country.
It was the Brits that shipped their (quite often innocent) 'criminals' out to Australia, uprooting families and what not.
If the Brits would do away with the monarchy, give them all the same pension as they would a regular man in the street, and appropriate their wealth (read: take back what was stolen from the people over the years), they could probably solve all their financial problems in one fell swoop.
They are extremely expensive puppets, nothing more.

With all due respect, only someone who has never lived in a totalitarian regime of *any* kind would make such a statement.

Democracies - even the very best ones - are full of holes like a good piece of Swiss Cheese.

Totalitarian regimes have numerous black holes reserved for those who dare even think of disagreeing with the policies of their masters.

I've lived in both and have chosen to choke on my Swiss...

The Prince's Trust is a charity and receives funding from public, private, and EU sources. It is open and regularly audited.

Britain had a malignant history at times. At other times we had a benign history; e.g. abolition of slavery, founding of trade unions, fighting injustice, etc.

However, when Cromwell & Co were in charge there was no monarch.

Our present constitutional monarchy pays taxes and lives within the laws of the land as laid down by parliament.

You have every right to dislike monarchy. I have every right to support its benefits.

Bravo, George.

All together now (We all know how it goes): "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

There are no easy answers on this subject. There are too many variables at work and there is no singular universal truth.

Actually it wasn't. Firstly, there are numerous examples of ancient republics going back much earlier than that. Secondly it wasn't a republic in either the ancient or modern sense - it was effectively a country under the control of a military dictator.


Only if the Head of State is actually prepared to do something in terms of the reporting line. The events around "The Dismissal" in 1975 showed that in Westmister based parliamentary systems, the Head of State is now entirely ceremonial in nature.

The roles which the Head of State is assumed by many to play in a Westminster based parliamentary Government are now entirely at the whim of whatever conventions the elected representatives and their lackeys decide are operating at any point in time.

"... it was effectively a country under the control of a military dictator."
A fair point, Bill, although being a republic and being a military dictatorship are not mutually exclusive. North Korea is one example. Looking around Africa and the Middle East will show a few more. BTW, I was thinking in terms of modern (post-Roman) rather than ancient history.

Thank you for reminding us of the Australian constitutional crisis in the 70s. There were some really dodgy things going on at that time and, IIRC, the letters C, I, & A seemed to crop up all too frequently for some people's liking.

Putin, for sure.

Putin in the USA and France as well?

At this point in the game, why not...

Swap them around a bit...send Sarkozy to Russia, Putin to U.S. and Obama to France...

Rotate 60 degrees in four years...

We could have taken Dominique Strauss-Kahn. His philandering would have been welcomed.

Ha, ha, ha!

all this palaver because killer, a socialist leaning fellow, appreciates HM The Queen's 60 years of service in a gilded cage..

jolly good, madam, heres a pint of the real black stuff raised to another 20 years or more..

no nation is perfect.. but when the sun never set on the British Empire they were civilizing the world and giving it a (more or less) common language..

These United States of America are not perfect but in their republican form took over for the pax britania when the brits went near bankrupt after the first war not to mention the second war..
And now we here in the USofA have a fellow who wishes to lead from behind and take over every Americans life from birth to death including what you are permitted to eat for lunch..

Who was it who said that this republic would last until the "poor" learned that they could vote themselves "free stuff"..

agrh.. excuse me but i must to the "loo" to barf up the obama hope and change.. while i still am allowed to flush before the enviro-nazis further limit my right to a healthy "loo"..

Alexis de Tocqueville. Aristotle also had some thoughts along those lines a bit earlier.

Cheers, Bill, I'll drink to that ... although it is doubtful that she'll reign for another 20 years despite her mother living to over 100. The Queen is 85 now.

My social conscience outweighs politics. I am a Parish Councillor, a voluntary (unpaid) position, and have every respect for democracy. Our local council works by consensus ... something I have worked hard to achieve. The layers of paid politicians above us make very little sense at times. They use goobledegook and spin to make themselves seem important. Only when one looks at the layer above the politicians (the Queen) does English return as a meaningful language.

The old stuff about, "people learned that they could vote themselves free stuff," can be countered by insisting that votes are only given to property owners. What then happens to universal adult suffrage?

Don't spend too long on the karzy or you'll end up with something that rhymes with asteroids.

P.S. I love the reference to Pax Britannica. BSA supplied arms to both sides in the American Civil War. BSA, famous for motobikes, stands for Birmingham Small Arms. That's Birmingham in the centre of England not the one in Alabama.

It may be the de Tocqueville quote you were looking for was:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

Or:

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”

More relevant to this thread may be:

“I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior men if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run.”

that is called a "free market"..
we here have the right to keep and bear arms.. so you KNOW that any would-be tin pot dictator will need to take those "arms" from the hands of the people before they impost too much top down tyranny..

in the early years of the american experiment, which did flower for years, it seemed that only property owners could vote..
no women allowed either (though i am not sure of this being the case in some of the early and original states)..

it did not take long after "universal sufferage" before votes were being bought with money from the public treasury..

unions have taken this to a whole new level of corruption..

it now seems that the EU (starting with germany) has seen and is being forced to see, the light.. while they still call themselves "social democrats" they seem to be slowly (greece excepted) adopting reagan-thatcher-ism..

you guys on that side of the pond (UK excepted) might just pull yourselves out of that stangnant cave and into the light of free-markets..

and now back to the original intent of this thread..

i have been told that the monarch in england has power that she rarely uses and that she can wield much more power than she has ever done.. for sure not like Henry VIII did once wolsey showed him how but power nonetheless..

Royal perogatives are detailed here: www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/ ... -03861.pdf