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

Why would anyone want to get rid of the Monarchy?

Announcements Posted on
Got a question about Student Finance? Ask the experts this week on TSR! 14-09-2014
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rmpr97)
    Why?

    Well for one they get over £150 million for doing their 'nonexistant' job.

    They cost the taxpayer in a time when the taxpayer doesn't have much money.

    Its quite authoritarian considering they're not elected in and they have the 'power' to do whatever.

    Tourism? Really? I've had people over from elsewhere and never once have the said 'Lets go see the Queens house'.

    What would be good for tourism, if we had no monarchy, and then we could go inside the Queens house, look at it all nice, maybe put in a cafe and have a coffee there and then run around in her garden.

    It brings pride? Really? Not once have I said 'jee whiz I'm proud of our Royal family. Not only do they do ****e all but Prince Phillip & Charles go around like perverts. Fergie goes selling access to people. Harry goes round dressing like a Nazi. Oh and the Queen just waves.'

    Oh, and the taxpayer have had to foot the bill for how many weddings that we have never been invited to. Yet foreign leaders who didn't pay for it go and have some of Will & Kate's cake.

    And another reason I don't like the Queen. Because she boycotts the Park Lane Hilton because it overlooks her palace garden. Not that I have an affiliation or interest in the hotel but it just made me think 'What and arrogant spoilt prick. What because while you drink the tea the taxpayer pays for, while you're wearing a million pound dress the taxpayer had paid for looking at your garden you can see the hotel that is the TAXPAYER. **** off
    **** off, you moron.

    Proves how clueless you are.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stanley Baldwin)
    I'd say for the political parties to ensure that they could control every possible aspect of the system. I'd actually not like the head of state to be elected (el Presidente?) because it would be based on personality and too much confrontation. The current system is the best possible one in reality.

    Keep the politics to parliaments and local councils and all will be well!
    I don't get if it's the best possible one then why are countries ditching it in drobes? When has a country in the last century ever gone from republic to monarchy? If it was the best system there would surely be some political will, like there is for all things.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 122025278)
    I don't get if it's the best possible one then why are countries ditching it in drobes? When has a country in the last century ever gone from republic to monarchy? If it was the best system there would surely be some political will, like there is for all things.
    Presumably the political will of the 80-85% of voters who support the monarchy is irrelevant to your calculation.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JacobW)
    Presumably the political will of the 80-85% of voters who support the monarchy is irrelevant to your calculation.
    In other countries, how can there be political will to go from a republic to a monarchy when we're already a monarchy dude lol.

    "Sixty-nine per cent of Britons think the country would be worse off without the monarchy compared to 22 per cent who would like to see it abolished, according to an ICM poll.

    The 47 percentage point margin is the widest since the same questions were first put to Britons by the research company in 1997. "

    Only 69%? And that's the highest in 15 years!? I can't wait until Charles is in wonder what it'll be like then! Plus according to ICM, the proportion is much higher in older respondents, as they die off that'll hit it too.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    So basically, the only argument you have is tourism?
    Which would be fair enough.
    However, do you really think tourists come to see the Queen? Or, more sensibly, that they come to see things like Buckingham Palace, The Tower of London, etc etc.
    We would not lose the reasons for tourism if we got rid of the monarchy.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carter78)
    I've stated time and time again that I am a republican. However I am not a hysterical republican like you. What's this thing about them being German? So what, is that a bad thing?

    Don't use "German" as an insult, it makes you look desperate.
    Don't use straw men as an argument, it makes you look desperate/ incompetent.

    Where in that sentence did I use "German as an insult? :lolwut: Stop putting words in peoples mouths because you're desperate.

    (Original post by Carter78)
    We will start electing them in November. For the entriety of British history up until November we have not. Again, is this dictatorial? How about Health authority leaders? Is it tyrannical that we don't elect them?
    Police commissioners are answerable to someone higher up who is usually elected. These people answer to to the Home or Justice secretary. An unelected dictatorial monarch does not, as they are the ultimate sovereign power. They don't answer to anyone but themselves. How you're trying to compare the two, is quite stupid frankly, and shows how you have little real knowledge on the subject.

    (Original post by Carter78)
    So now we're arguing over hypothetics now? I give you a solid example of how the public did turn against them and you confirm my point that they didn't start roaming the streets machine-gunning children in response.
    Because they didn't need to did they? There was no threat to their rule. You've not given an example of where they needed to, since the PR campaign and Blair's spin doctors won the gullibles over.

    (Original post by Carter78)
    Then open your eyes, click back a few ages and re-read Gladders case by case dismissal of your points.
    Can't see what you're talking about.

    (Original post by Carter78)
    hmmm, they just dictate everything to her instead.
    Proof of this?

    (Original post by Carter78)
    No not really, please name a time when she has recognised a foreign state or issued a passport or declared war without the consent of the government. If you think the Queen physically issues passports or reviews officers for promotion then you're very mis-informed.
    She doesn't need to because the government does it on her behalf. But she easily could do if she wanted to, that is the problem you are ignoring.

    (Original post by Carter78)
    The personal attacks aside, the Queen does not go around claiming she is descended from Jesus. And please show the MORI opinion polls that suggest the majority of monarchists believe in divine right.
    Yes, the Royal Family make a big deal of how they're descended from Jesus. Don't you know anything?

    Good one for ignoring all the "personal attacks" :congrats:

    (Original post by Carter78)
    By the way, superstitious heathen is an oxymoron. "Heathen" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heathen) refers to someone that is not a convert of a religion. So please tell me how someone who is not a convert/follower of a superstitious religion is also superstitious?
    :facepalm: This one of the most stupidest sentences I've read in a while. "Superstitious heathen" is not an oxymoron :rolleyes:

    Heathen refers to those who are non-Christians and was used commonly to refer to savages and primitive peoples who had not encountered the gospel such as those who practised voo doo. Like Christians, they were superstitious. Unlike Christians some practised voo doo. Where was this contradiction meant to be again? Are you trying to say you can only be superstitious if you're Christian? :rolleyes: Serious naivety.

    (Original post by Carter78)
    I'll allow you a moment to mop the froth from your lips...
    Which allows you to skip over any uncomfortable points I've made which conflict with your little ignorant and naive world-view. Well done :rolleyes: :congrats:

    (Original post by Carter78)
    This is perhaps the first set of points you've made which make sense. A monarchy doesn't make sense anymore. If we were to create a new state, the idea of a hereditary monarchy would not be adopted. However that doesn't mean that your hysterics are warranted or (as I have repeatedly asserted) grounded in reality.
    More which can be said for you. If you don't think someone having ultimate sovereign power legally over the whole country is a worthwhile issue to discuss, you are a disgrace to modern rational liberal principles.

    The Queen's powers are a social, legal and political reality, just because she hasn't needed to use them yet is not evidence that she or any other future monarch would not use them in the future. You need to wake up and come into the real world kid.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    .....
    I thought about responding to your final outburst there, but I've been inspired by the scientists who are invited to debate with young-earth creationists. Their response is always this;

    "That Sir, would look better on your CV than mine".

    Keep taking the meds.
    • 31 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Callahan)
    x
    Well, isn't it? I mean, how on earth is she sustaining herself throughout these years? What work does she do? Wave to people? I'm sure you need a PhD in Waving and Standing on Balconies to do that.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    If you believe in inherited constitutional power perhaps you shouldn't call yourself a socialist - the ideology tends to favour political equality!
    yet always results in the exact opposite.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sconter)
    yet always results in the exact opposite.
    Nope.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    Nope.
    yes.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carter78)
    I thought about responding to your final outburst there, but I've been inspired by the scientists who are invited to debate with young-earth creationists. Their response is always this;

    "That Sir, would look better on your CV than mine".

    Keep taking the meds.
    You can't respond because you don't have anything to say. You know I'm right but you are too stubborn to admit it.

    Keep living in denial.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    For all those republicans out there,
    How would you replace the monarchy with that of an elected president for example.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    There are no good arguments to get rid of the monarchy..
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Anyone who opposes the monarch should be arrested for treason!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    You can't respond because you don't have anything to say. You know I'm right but you are too stubborn to admit it.

    Keep living in denial.
    I've said all I want to say to you, I don't think you're right. - But that's cool, I think I might *just* be able to live with that.

    You do remind me of this guy though: "Muslamic Ray Guns!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL1jDcAHkc8
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Because they are clearly morons.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dobermory)
    Anyone who opposes the monarch should be arrested for treason!
    I don't think the Tower is open for prisoners any more and neither is Traitor's Gate.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    what are you lot on, there's no chance of getting rid of the monarchy. plus, i'd rather have our ragtag constitution and outlandish monarchy than some yank imitation government, where we have to brown nose some crappy piece of paper (i.e. constiution).


    GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

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: June 11, 2012
New on TSR

Writing your personal statement

Our free PS builder tool makes it easy

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.