Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should we abolish the monarchy?

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It's a rhetorical question really... I mean, of course we should!

    What I'm really asking is for any pro-monarchist to try to JUSTIFY the existence of an unelected, taxpayer funded, hereditary power structure in a post-modern democratic country.

    And before you start saying "b-bb-but she brings in a lot of money from tourism etc..." We all know that's bull****. Tourists come here for the culture, the shopping, the sights, etc... Not to see the queen. Those pretty buildings will still be here after we've gotten rid of the monarchy and the history and culture will remain forever as well.

    Example: More tourists visit Paris than London each year and we all know what the French did to their aristocratic oppressors... Game over monarchists!

    Another example of the extreme hypocrisy of monarchists is that they are so quick to criticize the "welfare culture" and "benefit scum" in this country. Did they not get the memo? The royal family are the BIGGEST welfare recipients in the WORLD! Why aren't our politicians DENOUNCING these scroungers?

    Oh, that's right... Our politicians only care about the rich! Wow! What a ****ing surprise!
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Reasons for monarchism instead of republicanism:

    George W Bush.

    That is all.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Reasons for monarchism instead of republicanism:

    George W Bush.

    That is all.
    So if we abolish the monarchy we'll become a nation of warmongering, gun loving, bible thumbing, "pro life" morons?

    That's not a very convincing argument.

    The US is not the only republic nor is Bush their only president.
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mysteries)
    So if we abolish the monarchy we'll become a nation of warmongering, gun loving, bible thumbing, "pro life" morons?

    That's not a very convincing argument.

    The US is not the only republic nor is Bush their only president.
    You raise some valid points about the monarchy but I don't think republicanism is the answer. How about reformed monachism? If they're getting too much in the way of benefits then cut back, if their constitutional role impedes the democratic process then argue for a further reduction in their powers.

    We run a quasi-presidential system anyway with very powerful PM's, another electee jostling for power would add another level of confusion to an already longwinded process.

    In short I'd favour a symbolic monarchy (which we already have really) over an elected president. It's part of our heritage and the tourists do lap that stuff up, if the UK was a business we'd definitely be keeping hold of the Queen for financial reasons (sans the benefits of course)
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    because without their ancestors britain woulndn't be a tenth what it is today
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    yes and seize all of the land for the people and then we will have decent priced land and so houses and so people will have more disposable income(i.e. first time buyers needing a smaller mortgage) and will help get the economy going again. Plus would you rather have doctors/nurses/police lose their jobs or get rid of a pointless and money wasting undemocratic institution which we should have got rid of a long time ago?
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bulgy)
    because without their ancestors britain woulndn't be a tenth what it is today
    Just because something sufficed in the past doesn't mean it is right for the future.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bulgy)
    because without their ancestors britain woulndn't be a tenth what it is today
    Another spurious argument.

    The same could be said about slavery, imperialism and genocide.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    You raise some valid points about the monarchy but I don't think republicanism is the answer. How about reformed monachism? If they're getting too much in the way of benefits then cut back, if their constitutional role impedes the democratic process then argue for a further reduction in their powers.

    We run a quasi-presidential system anyway with very powerful PM's, another electee jostling for power would add another level of confusion to an already longwinded process.

    In short I'd favour a symbolic monarchy (which we already have really) over an elected president. It's part of our heritage and the tourists do lap that stuff up, if the UK was a business we'd definitely be keeping hold of the Queen for financial reasons (sans the benefits of course)
    My main contention is that we should stop giving the royals anymore money and that THEY should start paying taxes like everyone else. They can easily get jobs. Their name recognition is huge and global. If they want to own dozens of castles and mansions then they should start paying rent.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No.

    It's actually a fact that the Monarchy brings more money in than is spent.

    Also the Queen is a symbol of British identity, and the Monarchy does a lot of work with charities, opening hospitals/schools, promoting British interests abroad, etc.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cannotbelieveit)
    No.
    Hmmm... Another extremely convincing argument... I'm starting to think that I might be wrong!

    EDIT: Lots of people are philanthropists. That doesn't justify them receiving millions of pounds for free each year.

    EDIT 2: Read my post. Nobody comes to Britain to see the queen. The architecture? The culture? The sights? Sure. But not the queen. It's not like tourists are going to bump into a royal in a pub or something. So you can't say the queen brings in any money at all.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It's not going to happen any time soon, this sort of silly patriotism is ingrained into British people's heads so deeply it would take something big to change their minds.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I really don't see how people can be satisfied with being born to follow and having someone else being born to lead.

    I mean, I quite like the Queen. I think she's done a lot of good things and I can respect that working for so long must be ridiculously difficult. But just because the Queen is alright, that does not make the Monarchy so.

    If you want to use the Queen as an argument for the Monarchy, I get to use Henry VIII as an argument against the Monarchy.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HSG1992)
    I really don't see how people can be satisfied with being born to follow and having someone else being born to lead.

    I mean, I quite like the Queen. I think she's done a lot of good things and I can respect that working for so long must be ridiculously difficult. But just because the Queen is alright, that does not make the Monarchy so.

    If you want to use the Queen as an argument for the Monarchy, I get to use Henry VIII as an argument against the Monarchy.
    This x >9000.

    Most people are dumb. Not really a surprise either. If you can convince people of Santa and a virgin birth what can't you convince them of!

    Sometimes I want to move to France... But I love this country too much in spite of the many morons that inhabit it.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    You conveniently forget the Royal Estate pays back more money than they take each year, look up the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall - the government makes a net profit.

    Republicans and pressure groups such as Republic are very much minority groups; the monarchy is going nowhere quickly. It's not up to us either, the abolition of the monarchy would require the unanimous approval of all 16 Commonwealth realms.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A Mysterious Lord)
    You conveniently forget the Royal Estate pays back more money than they take each year, look up the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall - the government makes a net profit.

    Republicans and pressure groups such as Republic are very much minority groups; the monarchy is going nowhere quickly. It's not up to us either, the abolition of the monarchy would require the unanimous approval of all 16 Commonwealth realms.
    Source?
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Apart from the money aspect (which I won't say any more on as I don't know what the numbers are), the royal family certainly do more good than harm. They have no actual power.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Ermmmm ... no.

    (Original post by Mysteries)
    Hmmm... Another extremely convincing argument... I'm starting to think that I might be wrong!

    EDIT: Lots of people are philanthropists. That doesn't justify them receiving millions of pounds for free each year.

    EDIT 2: Read my post. Nobody comes to Britain to see the queen. The architecture? The culture? The sights? Sure. But not the queen. It's not like tourists are going to bump into a royal in a pub or something. So you can't say the queen brings in any money at all.
    BIB: And what evidence is there of that? The Queen is a massive part of our culture. She's known all around the world, and she's loved and respected by many people, myself included. Her family is rooted in history. To take that away is to take away a large section of our culture.

    Look at the crowd turn out and the public interest in the Royal wedding. Something that brings so many people together, including people from across the world, all united in just seeing two people getting wed, can hardly be a bad thing, can it? and it shows just how popular they actually are.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mysteries)
    I'm too lazy to look it up so... source?
    All here: http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHous...alreports.aspx
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bulgy)
    because without their ancestors britain woulndn't be a tenth what it is today
    So, if my great great great grandfather (whom I never met and had no connection with) invented say, the smallpox vaccine, are you seriously suggesting I should have the praise for it despite having nothing to do with it.

    And if you do see it that way, why should we do this only for positive actions, why not negative ones? if Hitler had a great great great grandson (I know he didn't have any children but just as a hypothetical) who never met him nor agreed with him on anything nor committed or advocated any act of violence towards others, shouldn't he punished for it by your logic?

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: February 29, 2012
New on TSR

Find out what year 11 is like

Going into year 11? Students who did it last year share what to expect.

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.