A monarch provides unity by being above politics and political squabbles. A monarch embodies the Kingdom not its politicians.
What do you mean by kingdom?
The area ruled by a monarch and all that is within.
Do you mean the subjects of the kingdom? If so I don't think that the monarchy is the embodiment of its subjects.
I spent a lifetime interviewing the subjects of heads of state. These people had found themselves at odd with the actions of the government. However, to a man, they all said that the leader (unelected president/king) was a fine chap but had been led astray by scheming politicians. If the president had been elected, then they all felt that this man had reached that position by corruption and was vile.
This is the unity that the permanency a monarch embodies: Everything from him is down-hill. He is the country as it should be.
Now, this was often an illusion but, nevertheless, it was there. This is pragmatism.
You say that a monarch brings unity. I have used the Scottish referendum as an example of where there seems to be discord in the UK.
The questions are,
1. “Does an independent Scotland wish to be a member of the Commonwealth?”
2. “Are those Scots that want a republic justified? Or are they basing their opinions and mindless nationalism.”
3. You know as well as I that where there is a football match on TV between Tajikistan and England, any Scots in the audience will support Tajikistan. But you know also the contribution to the Union that the Scots have made inside and outside Scotland and you know their final loyalty to the Union: a loyalty driven by the understanding that all members of the UK have of “United we stand.”
On the question of all property reverting to the Crown on intestacy and untraceable heirs.
I'm not questioning the laws of inheritance in this instance, just the single aspect of bona vacantia.
Give it to someone else. The state, the local council, a charity for homeless people just not the crown. Although the money from intestate property can go back into the public pot this is an option not a requirement. Charles gives the bona vacantia revenue to charity. He doesn't have to, but I'm sure I would be more munificent if I were given free money for doing nothing.
I can’t see that your argument holds water. (i) The land has to go to someone, doesn’t it? Whatever happens to the land someone will make money out of it. The Crown is neutral. The Crown is well-defined. What is a charity? Anyone can start a charity. Why the local council? What makes them so honest – bent councillors are 10 a penny? Why do you think “homeless people” deserve more that orphans or the mentally ill? Can you see the arguments, whereas now we accept, shrug and say, “at least the law is clear.” (ii) You cannot believe that Her Majesty rubs her hands each time The Crown inherits ownerless land.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/bona-vacantia genuine efforts are made to trace ownership in a well-established manner. It is fair to us all and it works. You wish to defeat the system? Make a will – Simples!
I'll have a pint of Tipsy Fisherman please.
This alone should disqualify you from having an opinion on anything. Marston’s Bitter is the only drink.
I hadn't thought about the election costs, would this be balanced out by the savings made on royal events, weddings, coronations, jubilees, general walkabouts and the like?
Presidents do walkabouts, etc. The rest of the functions bring in vast millions by way of tourism.
And don’t forget – when that money is spent, it goes straight into our economy, doesn’t it?
OK, It is in the Torygraph, but this is an interesting article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9975944/Youve-been-worth-every-penny-of-the-Civil-List-Maam.html
But yes the hangers on do contribute to a lot of the cost. This is the problem with having a family in this position. All of them need protection, 5 star treatment and an income. We pay this for what gain?
The Civil List has been reduced. Those now on it are basically “Trade Delegates.” And on the subs’ bench for HM Queen.
However, the vast majority goes not to these people, but to those directly employed by the Crown
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10391693 click the tabs on the second graph.
And With the exception of Bush & Bush 2 president isn't a hereditary title that is passed on no matter how incompetent the heir.
Let us imagine the perfect ruler: the benevolent dictator. His sole purpose is to make us equal and happy… it’s not going to happen is it? Why? Because, under the present system, the richer and more powerful you are, the more your ideas are heard, leaving behind an increasing number of poor and disenfranchised who are never heard. It is said that this is “all for our own good”, yet the gap between rich and poor increases.
How did we reach this state of affairs? Usually, by the rich donating and expecting something in return. So, let’s look at the unelected powers in the UK:
The Judges
The House of Lords
The Crown
Do you want elected judges? Do you want someone who is not bothered what politicians say only what the law says? The judges may be accused of many things but they are neutral and from this comes their fairness.
The House of Lords: Why was it reformed years back? Because the Lords did not like government. It was above politics, it was above venal politicians, and it had no reason to be dishonest, deceptive, favour one instead of another.
Why is it packed every year with what the government of the day thinks will be its lackeys? Because it was independent and neutral and from this comes their fairness.
The Crown: It is above politics, it is above venal politicians, it is above business and power, it has no reason to be dishonest, deceptive, favour one instead of another.
In simple terms, if it works, don't fix it.
