Should the UK have a Monarchy?? Yes or No?

I guess the answer is just that the majority of Brits and Commonwealth subjects like having a Queen.

People like being told how to do things, they can't think for themselves. People are disinterested in politics and elections they just want to watch X factor and read about celebrities. We need a debate between well informed intellectuals to really emphasis the positives and negatives of a monarchy.

No

They're a waste of time and yes they generate money through tourism, do you see them selling all their jewels and gold to give to charity?

They're inbred and should be gotten rid off along with all other members of the ruling class who live in luxury while others suffer. "But at least their nice to look at"

The royal family don't tell us how to do things I agree, the political awareness and intellectual capacity of the public is imperfect, but replacing democracy with technocracy as you suggest is not a solution.

People like being told how to do things, they can't think for themselves. People are disinterested in politics and elections they just want to watch X factor and read about celebrities. We need a debate between well informed intellectuals to really emphasis the positives and negatives of a monarchy.

We are a nation of lazy people who feel they are entitled to everything. People from poor nations work hard because if they don't they will get nowhere. In America they have the whole 'American dream' and work hard attitude. The head of state needs to provide a positive representation, however, the monarchy simply promotes the idea of elitism and discourages aspirations. The monarchy is one of the last surviving relics of our barbaric imperialistic era, we should have gotten rid of them when our empire came to an end.

We go around the world promoting democracy and freedom. This is complete hypocrisy as we ourselves do not have the freedom we provide others. We cannot elect our head of state. We cannot become the head of state. Our armed forces works for our monarchy not the government. Our national anthem is about saving the Queen, not the people, not the government, this is ridiculous without the people there is no Queen!

So basically, because people disagree with you, you write them all of as stupid and incapable of thinking for themselves?

How arrogant are you?

We ARE debating the positives and negatives of the monarchy and every one of your points so far has been downright poor.

I haven't seen a single provable positive.

Tourism = unproven
Land deal with government = unproven
Money saved = unproven

come back when you have a proven point.

I never mentioned tourism. You did.

What land deal are you referring to?

Nor have I mentioned a money save - I think that was someone else. I do maintain, however, that the monarchy costs no more than a republic would.

A republic gives people the freedom to decide who represents us. Be that the Queen under a new title of president or someone else. We should have the freedom to vote.

Why? What material benefit would that bring? I already told you that actual elected presidencies are by no means the norm worldwide.

Out of curiosity, do you want to allow people to elect judges, or police commissioners, or rubbish collectors?

There isn't a transitional point, either constitutionally or practically. As soon as the Queen dies, there is a new King immediately. In the first year or two, there are major events and issues of Royal protocol to be followed, most notably the Coronation.

Even if you support the idea of a referendum on the British monarchy, which I think is an utterly vapid and ridiculous plan (I should probably qualify that with 'no offence' or the like, it's not a matter of republicanism itself, but rather holding a referendum - which is fairly awful in itself - about something that there is no genuine appetite to change) then you really ought to accept that it would be unsuitable to have one during such a significant period. For one, all the Republicans would no doubt suggest that money spent on Accession and Coronation events would be essentially taxpayer-funded propaganda. By the time all this dies down, the new monarch is already bedded in.

So really, there is no clean transitional period. A moment, perhaps, but no more. It's certainly not a great time to hold a referendum. I suspect the only reason Republicans suggest it is because they think the Prince of Wales is less popular than the Queen.

What material benefit does liberating Libya bring? none but we did it anyway because we stand for freedom and the right to vote for your head of state. We do things because they are they righteous and fair not because it gives us material benefits. If we are going to simply act based on material benefits we might as well invade Iran and Saudi Arabia now and steal their oil.

Electing police commissioners and judges sounds like a good idea. The rubbish collector thing hmmm any point? although it happened on an episode of The Simpsons. I don't know whether the public would have any real desire to elect these as the effect on their lives will be unnoticeable.

That's a non-sequitur. For something to be done you must demonstrate a material benefit. Otherwise, imagine the shoe was on the other foot, and I were advocating change of a different kind. You'd want to be persuaded of the benefits before changing, wouldn't you?



I bold this part as it's significant. Can you explain how electing the Head of State would make a huge change to the ordinary man or woman on the street?

As you said earlier that it's essential we elect it for freedom's sake, why shouldn't we elect everything? Why stop at the Head of State?

And why should we elect commissioners or judges? I am quite sure that the majority of people in this country are horrified at the concept of electing judges, and possibly as much hostile to electing commissioners - because they fear the consequences of such an act for these positions, which are meant to be politically impartial.