MovieChat Forums > The Queen (2006) Discussion > Dissovle the monarchy and have a Preside...

Dissovle the monarchy and have a President


One of the arguments that pro-monarchists have for having a monarchy is that if we dissolved the monachy it would coast more to have a President that would pretty much do the same job. But why would we necesarrily need to have a President when a Prime minster (or just a President that would carry on in the official political capacity of the PM) would suffice on It's own.
The US for example has a President and this was a country which was a colony and a part of the commonwealth. They've managed fine with just a President who basicly represents the country as leader and an ambassador as has the Vice president. And how much more would that cost? Nothing I would think considering we're already paying for the Prime Minister that we have now. At least in the long run. How much it would cost the British taxpayer to dissolve the monarchy is another issue.

reply

I'd say the role of a largely titular monarch (yes sounds funny doesn't it) is to be a politically neutral agent protecting the constitution.

reply

Unfortunately, there is no proof that our royal family are politically neutral (quite the opposite, in the case of Charles) and there are no checks or balances on royals in the same way that there are on the actions and attitudes of government ministers. What continues to pervade our system (unfortunately) is a general obeisance on the part of the elected towards the unelected. I also do not believe that the queen or any royal would act to 'protect the constitution' because they haven't the mandate to do much of anything. Instead, the royals are (understandably) most concerned with protecting Windsor interests and keeping the institution alive. They seem to limit their political role to a backstage one which lacks transparence.







Your name is of no importance and you live in the pipe in the upstairs water closet.

reply