Replies

Re the puppet Monarchy, I get why people like it (I’m obsessed with the history of it myself) and why UK traditionalists want to keep it but it’s fundamentally silly to have a powerless monarch with no surname and their whole damn family along for the ride, I’d sooner have a monarch with some actual power if they were my type of person.

My idea for the UK is do “soft” Republicanism. You replace the usurpers from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha with a non-partisan “Regent” to serve a 10 year term or so. This is functionally the same as a President but allows them to keep calling it a Kingdom.

William of Orange (I hear he was queer as a 3 pound bill) and Mary II were certainly usurpers under the traditional system of male-preference primogeniture, though Mary II was James II’s eldest child and would have been the heir minus “sexism” and William III actually would have been Charles II’s heir as his late mother was James II’s ELDER sister. The last chick to get screwed out of the the throne on account of being a chick was, if I am correct, Elizabeth Stuart, the daughter of James I, and of course her line eventually took over, Sophia of Hanover (mother of George I) was her daughter, though she had a crap ton of kids older than Sophia so I’m guessing any serving legitimate issue with a better claim were Catholic.

Prince Charles is older is than his sister Princess Anne so that’s not happening next time.

The House of Lords are trying to F with brexit, May should
have campaigned on abolishing it, it would have been a good issue for the Tories. Still can be for next time. A UK freepr made a decent case for old actual House of Lords before Blair kicked the hereditary peers out, but this crop of what are basically a crapload of Labour and Wet Tory appointees has absolutely no legitimacy whatsoever, much like the Canadian Senate or the Apartheid era South African Senate which they just expanded when needed extra votes to amended the Constitution (the same thing almost happened to the Lords when they rejected the liberal budget in the early 1900s, the PM threatened to create hundreds of new life peers) .

Upper houses just seem like pain in the A in Westminster systems, the Australian Senate is elected (with a stupid system though) and thus legitimate but a pain in the A.

If they're going to keep the useless ceremonial monarchy, my favorite "alternate sucession" over the obnoxious Windsor clan is a restoration of the House of Stuart. The descendants of James II were passed over by the Act of Settlement in 1701. The current "rightful monarch" who would be King now if the House of Stuart is restored is 83 year old Franz, the Duke of Bavaria, a Roman Catholic. Franz has no children, so when he dies, the title would pass to his younger brother Max. Max is 81, so when he dies, the title would pass to his eldest daughter, Princess Sophie of Liechtenstein, age 50. After her would be eldest son, Prince Joseph of Liechtenstein, age 22. Although a citizen of Liechtenstein, Prince Joseph was born at Portland Hospital in London. He is the first Jacobite heir born in the British Isles since 1688, and received his secondary education in England at Malvern College, and served in the British army. I'd favor having him as King over William (you'd think that guy could afford hair plugs with his millions) and the little creep Harry.

I suppose the only way I'd become a monarchist would be if they wanted to restore the French monarchy (since all five of France's "Republics" have been jokes) or the Hawaiian monarchy (since we illegally deposed the last Queen, and the current "heir apparent", Quentin Kawananakoa, is a staunch Republican and would get rid of Hawaii's socialist policies if he had actual power to rule the country)

In theory you could restore the Iranian monarchy to replace their Islamofacist dictatorship, but since all of the "heir apparent's" children have lived in Maryland their whole lives and know nothing of their native country, I don't see how that's feasible.

As for the House of Lords, my preference would be to keep a bicameral system and switch to elected house over just abolishing it outright and having a unicameral house (makes it easier to stop bad bills if BOTH houses have to approve them, and the UK proposes all sorts of awful legislation in the 21st century). Realistically though, its probably not going to happen since every proposal to switch an elected system has been shot down by the Lords, who want to keep their cushy appointed political careers for life. The only way we were able to enact that reform in the United States was that the U.S. Senate had become so incredibly corrupt by 1911 that the Senators were basically forced to go along with it because the Senate had become a joke thanks to newspaper headlines about senate seats being awarded by bribes, and they wanted to salvage their reputations. You'd probably need a similar nationwide candal in the UK to get the Lords to cave and agree to an elected Senate. Of course, a bunch of useful idiots on "our side" want to go back to politicians appointing their sleazy family, friends, and top donors to the "upper house".