For all those who would like to replace the Royals with a president, I would just like to say that very few presidents care about how the people of the country fare, it is more about them staying in power!
Look at Russia where people are only allowed to listen to what their country allows them to hear, so I view Putin as a dictator who can still press the nuclear button if he chooses to.
In China the leaders never seems to go short of what they need, yet many Chinese people live in poor housing on limited incomes & do as they are told!
The USA vote for their president, but many show a different side to the public than the people they really are.
If we lose the Royal family, because people think they cost too much, how much difference do you think that would make to the lives of the public? I suspect very little!
The royals have always created stability in the Uk & the Sovereign speaks to the prime minister on a regular basis. If the sovereign occasionally gets things wrong, as she did when Diana died, the PM can try to discreetly suggest alternative actions, which are often listened to.
I would hate to live in a country led by an elected President, because we donāt really know how they think & often they have too much power. Many of the royals have served this country by spending time in the forces & learning what people of our forces have to learn. I believe that helps them to continue the stability we have known, but Presidents who seek power & sometimes become dictators, are really only interested in making a good life for themselves!
If it happens here, I probably wonāt be here long enough to see the worst happen, but I dont have children or grandchildren to worry about!
That said though @Octogen it wasnāt the US who colonised these shores, consequently subjugating and oppressing the peoples already living here.
I also fail to see how a royal is any more well known, truly known, than an elected official. At least a president is selected on policy in a democratic system (Chinese and Russians etc are party selected) and is not there merely by dint of birth
If you lived in the UK you would be aware that our media report everything, good or bad, about our Royals, so we know them considerably better than any politician!
*From the late 18th century, the country was regularly visited by explorers and other sailors, missionaries, traders and adventurers. In 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi was signed between representatives of the United Kingdom and various MÄori chiefs, bringing New Zealand into the British Empire and giving MÄori the same rights as British subjects. *
If your Maori chiefs didnāt believe this would improve New Zealand, why did they sign the treaty?
A large proportion didnāt and may i suggest you will sign nearly anything under military repression and āsuperiorā might. Maori, as with many other indigenous nations colonised, have seen nothing close to equality.
Canāt say as i share quite the same faith as you in media outlets eitherā¦and i lived in the UK for five years (many years ago). Loved it!
I am sorry to hear that, but that was back in the 18th century! I know that New Zealand is a beautiful country but how can we know if the country would have been as successful in growth if they had not signed the treaty?
As a child I loved England in the years after the war, but life changes everywhere when the population increases, and other countries offer better trading prices. I know many Welsh lamb farmers who would be happy to see no NZ lamb in our shops, so they could increase prices of Welsh lamb and maker a bigger profit.
I also know that in Australia the Aborigines donāt get a fair deal, but surely after all these years that is down to your current governments as they run your country !
Many Maori argue they were doing just fine thank you very much. The treaty was not signed by the current government, they are simply charged with attending to the many grievances which continue to pop up. It is a multi-generational shift required to assimilate a new culture. That is an ongoing processā¦think of a language being refused, segregated classrooms and public facilities etc. It all happened and the hangover from that persists.
In the 1980s trade deals with the Uk (post WW2) were ended, decimating NZs sheep/lamb and wool farming. Hence a huge conversion to dairy and forestry. We donāt export lamb like we used to sorryā¦because its delicious
Looking back on any history you will see repression of people and Iām pretty certain that the U.K is not alone in itās maltreatment of people. Examples that can be considered this form of genocide include the treatment of Tibetans and Uyghurs by the Government of China as an example .
Yes our history leaves a lot to be desired and Iām not proud of it ,but surely times have changed and we need to move away from ugly history.
The Monarchy in Britain especially in the past 70 years has bought stability to our nation .God forbid we lose that to a Republican state.
Perhaps consider just how much and the impact of ātimes have changedā for Maori and Aboriginal peoples?
To āmove onā would quite possibly mean the abandonment of vast tracts of their culture and heritage. A treaty wws signed with the crown and Elizabeth herself acknowledged it had not and is not being honoured. That ugly history is the today of those at the receiving endā¦
I am no way denying the atrocities that have taken place ,just commenting on why I think abolishing our Monarchy could do more harm than good in the U.K.
I would not be at all surprised if the Commonwealth as we know it ceases to be in years to come.
I agree Octogen! I feel that our Royal family still hold a more stable future for the UK. Retaining all the rituals of the past would be better than change, especially as the world is moving so fast now. If parts of the Commonwealth wish to leave, they should be allowed to, but I do believe that Russia & China may eventually decide that they want the world to be communist & the USA will try to prevent it. All 3 countries are power hungry & their fight for power could destroy much of the world!
One of the reasons I voted for Brexit is because the EU were becoming too big & wanting power, but I think it may be too late to hope that we can find a peaceful solution!
My vision of the future looks more like a horror story every day!
@Kowhaigirl , talking of accents KG, Niether you ,nor Brucy mention
changing your national language at all ?
Do you not think this will be necassary ?
Most nations achieving freedom from the oppressor usually feel the need
to completely reject all past associations with the past, including reverting
to their native language ??
In the case of the antipodes ,might l suggest Cantonese would be suitable ??
@Octagen, Why does abolishing the monarchy entail installing a republican
state WITH a president ??
Surely the president is not a given is it ?Cant we carry on as we are at the
moment, parliament etc need not change st all, except for the HOL ??
We dont need a monarch or a president?
What for?
We would still have a prime minister wouldnt we ??
I canāt speak for Octagen, but I believe that a country needs long term strategy so changing the Prime Minister every 4 years or less is hardly a great idea!
The royals donāt rule the country, but at least PMs had respect for the queen so would listen to her. Times are changing so I would hope that women are now considered equal & I believe that the new King is likely to show the same respect to any PM, be it man or womanā¦ but major problems are likely to take longer than 4 years put right.
What I am saying is only a strong person can lead this country & the majority of politicians are not displaying this strength. Letās be fair Boris couldnāt even obey his own rules so they need a Monarch to hear what they say, because their words will be listened to!
Thatās a nonsense Twink, Presidents have as much or as little power as you give them. A UK President could be just a figurehead like the Queen, they donāt even have to be elected (Look at your House of Lords)
It was reported on this morningās news that Jamaica is thinking of becoming a republic - I think they are one of the countries that would need to change their constitution to accomadate a new monarch.
it may have been stated already but I am getting a little tired - for now Oz will not be breaking ties with the āold countryā but possible in the future as the labor govt is committed to such an act I believe - Brucey???
