TSR Republican Society

No, you see, the suffragettes weren't the same as the monarchy, they were women who sought for votes through organised protest.

Your identity is very much related to the queen, whether you like it or not. Tell someone abroad that you're British, and that is what they will associate you with.

I can't see how you've 'told me several times already', i'm not sure i've actually ever spoken to you before...

As for your tourism argument, presumably this one:


It's essentially nonsense because you overestimate the power of the Royal Family. Do you recall that Cromwell won? No? We currently have a democratic system. This is why everybody votes. The queen has no real power, her rights and duties are basically ceremonial.

Tourism is worth more than 'a few postcards', in 1999 tourism brought in about £61 billion - not all due to the monarchy, but their image is no doubt a significant contribution.

You descend into fantasy here: "we could easily maintain the actual family via a charitable system... etc etc... " so i'm not going to bother answering.

Cromwell won... and established a totalitarian dictatorship to make the absolutism of the cavaliers look fun. And if she is basically ceremonial then why the devil does her office need to exist?

Significant contribution? I suspect most tourists never see the royal family, when those that come here in regards to sightseeing they're here to see the sights and the historical associations of it. I suspect the vast majority would come to see Windsor Castle regardless of if a pleasant 85 year old lady was in one of the other rooms signing documents into law. Sightseeing and tourism is a massive thing for Germany and it's hundreds upon thousands of castles and manors and yet their Emperors, Kings, Princes and Grand Dukes no longer legally hold their titles or wield any de jure force!

I am inclined agree. It would be needless, even if we take away the Crown Estates associated with the office of the crown and the ducal territories associated with the dukedoms (hereditary title removal, I suspect, would be a necessity of a Republican Government)...

...then the Royal Family is still a relatively wealthy holder of private capital. Obviously not as rich as they are now but I suspect the vast majority of Britains would sell their liver to have a life as good as Citizen Windsor.

It's a separation of powers matter, really: which is why no country goes without a Head of State (with the possible exception of Switzerland). Firstly the monarchy monopolises the symbology of the State in such a way as to prevent a political party of government leader hijacking them for themselves. Secondly she possesses certain powers which would be dangerous in the hands of the government or parliament as they directly impact them. The role is essentially that of denying these powers to the others without them fulfilling certain conditions or ensuring they don't abuse certain obligations in return (such as ensuring the government doesn't call an early election to kill of an internal party leadership challenge, for example).



Speaking anecdotally here, and in no way relying on the tourism argument, but I know of a good deal of Americans who are attracted to the UK because of the living, contemporary monarchy. It's the fact that these buildings belong to a real, existing monarch, and are not symbols of a past one, that fascinates them so, and they don't care if they never see the monarch when they're over here - they just know she's around.



But not seizure of property - they might become Mr. and Mrs. Windsor, rather than the Dukes of Lancaster, Normandy and Cornwall, but they will still have absolute rights to the land they own.



Absolutely which is why it makes me laugh when people criticise the royals for splashing out on personal things - almost certainly that's their own money being used, not the taxpayers'.

The Queen--in-Parliament can only give Royal Assent with the advise and consent of the House of Commons. She has no ability to write legislation on her own.

Although the Queen still has the power to withold Royal Assent, I can't see this happening except in some dire situation where I could actually be advantageous.


Furthermore, I'd ask what the advantages of having a President over a Monarchy are? It doesn't really add anything and takes a lot away.

No, you see, the suffragettes weren't the same as the monarchy, they were women who sought for votes through organised protest.

Your identity is very much related to the queen, whether you like it or not. Tell someone abroad that you're British, and that is what they will associate you with.

I can't see how you've 'told me several times already', i'm not sure i've actually ever spoken to you before...

As for your tourism argument, presumably this one:


"As I've said before, it's a rubbish argument for either side to use - changing to a truly Democratic system (or keeping a good one, if you're a monarchist) should be worth more than a few postcards. Furthermore, we could easily maintain the actual family via a charitable system - supporters give money each month which goes to the Windsor family. I'd clear them out of Buck House and make it a full time museum, but there's no reason that they can't live in one of their privately owned castles, and carry on with the soap opera (which is what the Americans actually care about) whilst having no political links with the state."

It's essentially nonsense because you overestimate the power of the Royal Family. Do you recall that Cromwell won? No? We currently have a democratic system. This is why everybody votes. The queen has no real power, her rights and duties are basically ceremonial.

Tourism is worth more than 'a few postcards', in 1999 tourism brought in about £61 billion - not all due to the monarchy, but their image is no doubt a significant contribution.


You descend into fantasy here: "we could easily maintain the actual family via a charitable system... etc etc... " so i'm not going to bother answering.

I dont wish to become involved with the wider argument the two of you are having, but I have two important points to raise in relation to your statements in the above post:

1.) Why is my identity related to the Queen just because someone abroad might associate her with the country? This is a very poor argument. Just because someone might - for the sake of argument - associate Crocodile Dundee with Australia doesn't mean it tells me anything about Australians in general.

2.) You state that the image of the Monarchy is a "significant contribution" to tourism, but have you actually got any facts to back this assertion up?

Interesting points, my answers:

1) Well, with the crocodile dundee example, i think it reasonable to claim that when people think about Australia, it's probably one of the images that would come to mind, as well as sharks/bondi/bruces etc... so yes exactly, it wouldn't tell us anything about Australians in general, but it's an associated image; so with you, your identity isn't related to the queen, but people (believe me, i've had experience of this) will possibly associate you with all things british (in a jocular way): snobbery, class, the monarchy, silly accents etc. etc., it's more of our national identity: a relic of the empire.

2) For the reasons above, i'd say that it contributes to a romantic picture of Britain: the guards in silly hats who don't smile, etc. But no, i have no facts im afraid, although the 68 billion figure is verifiable.

In response to point (1): why does our national identity hinge on the perception of others? Isn't this a national stereotype that you're arguing for, rather than a national identity? Likewise, what does it have to do with the retention or abolition of the Monarchy whatsoever? I might think of the Ku Klux Klan as synonymous with the Southern States of the USA but that's no argument for them to be retained or endorsed.

As for (2), yes, I'm aware that the figure for tourism to the UK is verifiable, but that's immaterial. All you're telling me is that, because we have a £68bn tourism industry in the UK, the Monarchy must account for a large portion of it. Yet you're not pointing to facts that back this assertion up (as you admit, you cannot). There's also a difference between arguing that the Monarchy feature high on the tourist agenda (although they might, your argument hasn't solidified this into any tangible fact) and that they form a large part of the annual turnover from tourism.

1) Fair enough - a stereotype, but one which i would say influences tourism - without them, would tourism really happen?

2) I have found some evidence, hurrah! http://www.cnntraveller.com/2010/07/30/monarchy-boosts-british-tourism/

I'm aware she cannot write legislature, my focal point is really Royal Assent.

What's interesting is that you've stated "you can't see this happening". Although you qualify this with "in some dire situation", the point remains: the Queen could withold her Royal Assent.

Out of interest, what would having a President rather than a Monarchy take away?

The primary concern here is the democratically elected Head of State as opposed to an unelected Monarch.

The function of the King in promoting stability and acting as a sort of keystone in a non-democratic society is, of course, obvious. But he also has, or can have, the function of acting as an escape-valve for dangerous emotions. A French journalist said to me once that the monarchy was one of the things that have saved Britain from Fascism. What he meant was that modern people can’t, apparently, get along without drums, flags and loyalty parades, and that it is better that they should tie their leader-worship onto some figure who has no real power. In a dictatorship the power and the glory belong to the same person. In England the real power belongs to unprepossessing men in bowler hats: the creature who rides in a gilded coach behind soldiers in steel breast-plates is really a waxwork. It is at any rate possible that while this division of function exists a Hitler or a Stalin cannot come to power. On the whole the European countries which have most successfully avoided Fascism have been constitutional monarchies. The conditions seemingly are that the Royal Family shall be long-established and taken for granted, shall understand its own position and shall not produce strong characters with political ambitions. These have been fulfilled in Britain, the Low Countries and Scandinavia, but not in, say, Spain or Rumania. If you point these facts out to the average left-winger he gets very angry, but only because he has not examined the nature of his own feelings towards Stalin. I do not defend the institution of monarchy in an absolute sense, but I think that in an age like our own it may have an inoculating effect, and certainly it does far less harm than the existence of our so-called aristocracy. I have often advocated that a Labour government, i.e. one that meant business, would abolish titles while retaining the Royal Family.

1.) Yes! People don't come to the UK exclusively to see things related to the Monarchy; arguing that is ludicrous.

2.) "The survey found that culture and heritage, in the widest sense and including theatres, galleries, castles and stately homes – generated £4.6 billion in total spending by overseas tourists in 2009, and supported 100,000 jobs.

Within that total one in eight sites – ranging from the Tower of London to The Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh and Ruthin Castle in Wales – are associated with monarchy. The report reveals that foreign tourists who visited them generated £500 million of spending, directly and indirectly."

Of the £68bn yearly revenue from tourism to the UK, £4.6bn is generated by "culture and heritage" - and the nearest that comes to the Monarchy is that there is an "association" between the Monarchy and 1 in 8 sites. This is very vague, and a ruined castle's Royal history hardly has any bearing on the current Monarchy.

Likewise, for all your arguments about the Monarchy generating massive revenue for UK tourism - the article explicitly states it generated "well over" £500million last year... out of £68billion - if you're sticking to that figure. Even if we're generous, the upper ceiling on this would be around £600million generated directly by the Monarchy. That's around less than ~1/100th of the UK's tourism revenue from the Monarchy.

You're one of those people who wouldn't accept a fact if it slapped them in the face, i think? Just graciously lose the argument... 600 million would still be rather significant, and I don't know what you mean by 'generated directly by the monarchy'; our ruined castles obviously have a lot to do with the monarchy, even the current ones (to have ancestors of famous people still living, for them to still live in Buckingham palace, their existent traditions, ROYAL WEDDINGS etc etc), and even if they didn't then they would still have relevance to British identity as relics of monarchies past.

I shall quote you another source (there are countless, because your argument that the monarchy is worth little to the country is so utterly wrong)


"Given that the Monarchy costs annually about 54 pence per tax payer, to an annual total of about 50 million pounds sterling, one does not need be smarter than a ten-year old to realise how much value-for-money the British Monarchy means for the National wealth, even considering associated costs usually indexed to Government Budget rather than the Royal Purse Budget.
However, money is not the only set of criteria here.
There is huge added value in it being a neutral, impartial Institution, floating well above the day-to-day political banter. It is important because it offers conditions of stability and neutral continuity no other regime system is able to sustain."

http://thespheresplow.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/british-monarchy-tourism-revenues-revealed-on-bbc/

You're one of those people who wouldn't accept a fact if it slapped them in the face, i think? Just graciously lose the argument... 600 million would still be rather significant, and I don't know what you mean by 'generated directly by the monarchy'; our ruined castles obviously have a lot to do with the monarchy, even the current ones (to have ancestors of famous people still living, for them to still live in Buckingham palace, their existent traditions, ROYAL WEDDINGS etc etc), and even if they didn't then they would still have relevance to British identity as relics of monarchies past.

I shall quote you another source (there are countless, because your argument that the monarchy is worth little to the country is so utterly wrong)


"Given that the Monarchy costs annually about 54 pence per tax payer, to an annual total of about 50 million pounds sterling, one does not need be smarter than a ten-year old to realise how much value-for-money the British Monarchy means for the National wealth, even considering associated costs usually indexed to Government Budget rather than the Royal Purse Budget.
However, money is not the only set of criteria here.
There is huge added value in it being a neutral, impartial Institution, floating well above the day-to-day political banter. It is important because it offers conditions of stability and neutral continuity no other regime system is able to sustain."

http://thespheresplow.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/british-monarchy-tourism-revenues-revealed-on-bbc/

Once again we come back to tourism...oh dear. The tourism argument doesn't matter!

However, I find my association with a monarchy and living within a United Kingdom to be far more charming and positive than living in a sterile, dull and factory-formed republic.

I'm not a fan of the Tourism or Financial argument either, everyone seems to love it though.

It's £600 million from sites related to the monarchy, if we abolished the monarchy I'm pretty sure a large proportion of that won't disappear. In fact, more of the 'private' estates would be available and therefore people could visit those as well! I won't make absolute claims as to how much we'll lose/gain in monetary terms but I suspect it'll be plus or minus £100 million at most. In Germany the former holdings of their hundreds and hundreds of Dukes, Grand Dukes, Princes, Kings and Emperors from the Holy Roman Empire are still sights of interest today and are a core back bone of their tourism industry despite their various hereditary leaders not being in power.

Also, the Royal Wedding is likely a net loss to our economy due to the bank holiday, it's link with the Easter Bank Holidays and the three day working day (where productivity will be, I suspect, low!) resulting in a lot more people absconding the nation for a nice break. Not to mention if the Royal Wedding causes a stir, can you imagine how much interest would be generated over abolishing the Monarchy? Lastly, that blog is written by a partial writer, scouring through the rest of his blog he seems a dyed in the wool conservative. Taking other people's partial and personal arguments and using it as a counter argument and a 'source' is unusual, to say the least. Sources aren't usually other people's opinions (as all of us here have enough of that to throw around!) but facts and figures to support our viewpoint. Your CNN post would be a valid secondary source, the blog post not. It would be the same if I went to a pro-Republican Blog and stole verbatim from there. There's no sense trying to 'win' an argument with other people's arguments, the goal is to establish, entertain and educate yourself and your fellow posters. The fellow also compares us to Portugal as if that's the only other Republic in the world, it would be as if I was arguing for a republic using Saudi Arabia as an example of a monarchy!

I much prefer our constitutional monarchy to an absolute monarchy where Queen Elizabeth II can come into my house beat me up and take my stuff. I favour a constitutional republic along the French Model but a Parliamentary Republic would also be acceptable. Vive la France! Vive la République! An interesting side note is that the French Prime Minister in 1956 wanted to form a personal union between our two countries, taking Queen Elizabeth II as Queen and joining into a single nation. After we rejected them they went and formed the EEC, swings and roundabouts eh? Mind you, when it was later revealed to their parliament Prime Minister Mollet was not a popular man. This took some time as Mr Mollet quietly dropped the idea after his rejection without entering it into any official records. Several people suggested he should have got his arse in front of a court to face charges of treason and conspiring with the enemy!

It's £600 million from sites related to the monarchy, if we abolished the monarchy I'm pretty sure a large proportion of that won't disappear. In fact, more of the 'private' estates would be available and therefore people could visit those as well! I won't make absolute claims as to how much we'll lose/gain in monetary terms but I suspect it'll be plus or minus £100 million at most. In Germany the former holdings of their hundreds and hundreds of Dukes, Grand Dukes, Princes, Kings and Emperors from the Holy Roman Empire are still sights of interest today and are a core back bone of their tourism industry despite their various hereditary leaders not being in power.