[Lipvig]

(Original post by Subology)
Voter turn out for the French presidential elections was over 70%. That is like nothing we ever see in Britain. I really think how we do politics here is stale and stagnant. Is it because we lack a president? that's probably not the primary reason, but I think it is a minor one and should be addressed.

I doubt its an issue and even if it was, I'd rather address the bigger issues then the minor ones.

[Azog 150]

The 'tourism' argument is the most tired, boring washed up argument going.

We are talking about a system of governance, not a subsidy for industry. Financial arguments in general, either pro or anti-Monarchy, are stupid in this discussion. Republic or Monarchy, either way the cost is a tiny blip on the radar of government spending.

Unless you are going to argue for the merits or drawbacks of either Republic or Monarchy as a political institution then there is not much point in arguing at all.

And quite frankly it doesn't matter whether we have a Monarchy or a Republic, its just a name change and wouldn't represent any fundamental change in the way this country is run. There are far more pressing issued concerning this country, and it would be nice if people put as much energy into debating those issues then these endless and boring monarchy threads that just repeat themselves.

[Josh_Dey]

Why should one family be more important than any other family in the UK?

It just doesn't make sense...

[Scatach]

"The power of the monarchy lies not in that which they preserve for themselves, but in that which they prevent others from assuming."

[Forget that]

(Original post by multiplexing-gamer)
I don't understand.

• Britain makes £200 million pounds from the monarchs, and only costs 40 million to actually have them
• The government get all the monarchs land so we're actual richer
• It encourages tourism therefore money is spent elsewhere like in Bars and Restaurants as tourists come to England. So it's not just monarchy related profits
• It brings pride to our nation
• It costs less than a £1 per person in the country
• And no if we got rid of the Monarchy it wouldn't be as popular. It's exciting to think we have our very own living monarchy in London, if they died out hundreds of years we'd get some tourism but we'd make less.

So, why do you want to get rid of the monarchy? We make money from this, and if we got rid of them profits would be less as it's not as interesting, we may aswell just go to a mueseum in that case.

Don't just neg me and not justify your point.

You've missed a key point- the governemental system.
We would have to have a president, and a congress. We would essentially be Amercia. This is my main reason to keep the queen

[JoeLatics]

(Original post by Forget that)
You've missed a key point- the governemental system.
We would have to have a president, and a congress. We would essentially be Amercia. This is my main reason to keep the queen

Yeah, the only 2 governmental systems in existence are monarchies and US style Republics... Just go google 'Irish Presidency' for me? :-)


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Psyk]

(Original post by somethingbeautiful)
B) The Monarchy is fundamentally sexist:

Succession to the throne depends on gender (male preference), people wonder why women are still treated as 2nd class citizens. It's ingrained into our society because of our outdated monarchy - wake up.

You're out of date with that one. The law of succession was changed last year. Now from Prince Charles onwards, the crown will go to the first born, regardless of gender.

[tj hughes]

(Original post by multiplexing-gamer)
Hello fellow socialist! Yes I agree people shouldn't be born into wealth, but according to the video above it brings money into our country so it'd be silly to destroy them for all the money lost from our economy.

IMHO Great Britain is about so much more than money. Even if it is financially advantageous to have a monarch, which I don't think it is (tourists would still visit for the heritage, history etc.) I still think we shouldn't have a monarchy. To have an unelected head of state is absolutely scandalous. How can we lecture to other countries that their dictator/monarch should step down when we have one ourselves?

I don't think anyone disagrees that it is wrong to be born into power, I think peoples' views vary as to how important it is to be a monarchy or republic. And I think it's vary sad that we this debate about democracy and elitism is reduced and limited to supposed financial benefit. That is all

[gladders]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
No... you're wrong. A conservative estimate is they cost at least £190 million per year to the British taxpayer.

A sum which could be spent on hospitals, education, infrastructure, tax breaks, tuition fees, you name it.

It is the equivalent to 9,560 nurses, 8,200 police officers and the Ministry of Defence total annual spending on food. Considering police officers around the country went on strike today because they're losing their jobs... puts it into perspective. All for the benefit of one incredibly greedy and self-important family who think they're better than everyone else. Yet 1 in 5 of people in Britain are below the poverty line, i.e. have to live in a state of poverty because of this greed.

No, that's Republic's estimate, and Republic are a crooked crank organisation with a bee in their bonnet. Moreover, this cost would remain with a republic. Your claim it would fund nurses and policemen is fraudulent, as it would be consumed by a president.

The true amount could be much higher as the National Audit Office is not allowed to audit the Royal household and Freedom of Information requests are denied.

But it is checked and vetted by Treasury civil servants and signed off by Parliament annually.

Forbes magazine estimated the Queen's net worth at around US$450 million. The Queen receives £7,900,000 a year from public funds, even though she makes millions more per year through her businesses and owns several castles and palaces. Funny how we gave Saddam stick for having a few palaces, yet we don't if it's the Queen.

Good grief. Are you think? The £8m is not a salary - it's funding the office of head of state, and would remain with a republic. In fact the Queen receives no taxpayer funds for her own enjoyment. Knock it off.

So she obviously doesn't need the money. Yet we keep on giving it to her.

See above. You're talking out of your rear.

No... they don't.

Technically all the land in the UK belongs to the monarch and we are just her tenants. Hence why we have to pay her so much in tax just to live here.

That's not been the case for centuries, and you have no way to support your claim that we pay higher tax because of the monarchy.

No it doesn't... it's a severe embarrassment. The fact that we still institutionalise a family to be superior to everyone else simply because of their "blood". It's so archaic and demented. We're the laughing stock of the world.

Sure we are that 80% who support the monarchy are an inconvenience to your blinkered view of the world. Nobody laughs at Britain because of the monarchy.

That's so reassuring when we're 900 billions pounds in debt , I'm so glad we're spending more for some family who have never worked a day in their lives to live a life of decadence and luxury that they constantly flaunt in our faces.

They have worked extremely hard, actually. You know what the President of Germany does? Do you think they have an easy life?

It's not exciting. It's seriously depressing. If they died out Britain would be a much better place.

Britain would be no better and no worse. Stop being so shrill.

It's an undemocratic, unaccountable institution with no place in a modern society.

The 'no place in a modern society' argument is tired and irrelevant. Please direct me to the great cosmic calendar that says when things should be got rid of purely for their age.

It is not undemocratic, nor is it unaccountable. If the monarchy ever did something Parliament or the people did not tolerate, it would be stripped of its powers and ultimately a republic would be established.

It costs far more to our democracy and our economy, financing countless wasteful Royal Weddings and Jubilees that jeopardise our economy to celebrate a family's dominance over us.

It costs us nothing - particularly as the Queen does not receive a salary. If anything, she's doing her job for free. You're the one with a rather unpleasant bee in your bonnet.

[gladders]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
Yeah, the only 2 governmental systems in existence are monarchies and US style Republics... Just go google 'Irish Presidency' for me? :-)


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

I love how you constantly cite the Irish presidency as if it can justify ignoring all the other presidencies that are fraught with problems and power struggles. Why risk the change when we have no such problem? It would essentially be a very expensive and controversial image change to end up exactly where we were before.

[sclez1]

(Original post by Alofleicester)

• Not at all, the 40m figure is woefully innaccurate - the estimated cost of the monarchy is actually £150m. And where does this £200m figure come from?
• How so? That land would be ours anyway without the Monarchy.
• The Monarchy contributes pretty much nothing to tourism (less than 1% of tourist revenue) - only one Royal residence makes it on to the top 20 tourist attractions: Windsor Castle (17th, well behind, for instance, Legoland). If we look at the Tower Of London (6th), tourism would arguably be better off without the Monarchy.
• That's a matter of opinion, how can you prove that the royals bring pride to our nation? Certainly many people have no pride in them, quite frankly I'm more ashamed of them, given the antics of Prince Phillip when on foreign business.
• Again, a lie spread by the Royal's PR team - that figure is gained by dividing the 40m "cost" by 60m (the population) rather than those that actually pay taxes. Take the estimated cost (£150m) and the number of tax payers (in 04-05, 29.5m - bottom of page 7) and the cost is closer to £5 per year than 67p. It also costs 100 times that of the Irish presidency.
• What wouldn't be as popular? and as I've already said, the tourism idea is a lie.

http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we...ment/index.php

This. But also, in any other walk to life the idea of a person being born into a role of such importance and not chosen according to merit would recieve outcry. People don't question it because it's always been that way, but the idea of having someone, no matter how capable or deserving, born into royalty is disgustingly unfair and undemocratic. These two things together make me amazed that anyone could possibly be in favour of the monarchy.

[Spaz Man]

Not to mention that a Presidency would be more expensive and essentially do the exact same thing (put a mandatory stamp of approval on a bill that's passed the legislature).

People don't seem to appreciate just how seriously they should be treating the thought of the cessation of an institution that is part of the very bedrock of our British identity in exchange for a republic that every other allied nation has and would make no difference constitutionally.

[JoeLatics]

(Original post by Spaz Man)
Not to mention that a Presidency would be more expensive and essentially do the exact same thing (put a mandatory stamp of approval on a bill that's passed the legislature).

People don't seem to appreciate just how seriously they should be treating the thought of the cessation of an institution that is part of the very bedrock of our British identity in exchange for a republic that every other allied nation has and would make no difference constitutionally.

Bedrock of our identity, ha! Do you really think that little of the British people that the only thing holding us together is this single family?! Also, why would a Presidency cost more? Ireland's presidency is 10 times cheaper than out monarchy...


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[gladders]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
Bedrock of our identity, ha! Do you really think that little of the British people that the only thing holding us together is this single family?!

Strawman. He did not claim what you think he claimed. The monarchy is not the only thing that makes us British, but the high popularity of the monarchy indicates it is something that people associate positively with.

Also, why would a Presidency cost more? Ireland's presidency is 10 times cheaper than out monarchy...

Ireland is ten times smaller. For a fairer example, compare it to Germany's, or even better, France.

[gladders]

(Original post by sclez1)
This. But also, in any other walk to life the idea of a person being born into a role of such importance and not chosen according to merit would recieve outcry.

You want meritocracy? Blimey. Forget electing the office then.

People don't question it because it's always been that way, but the idea of having someone, no matter how capable or deserving, born into royalty is disgustingly unfair and undemocratic. These two things together make me amazed that anyone could possibly be in favour of the monarchy.

First, in an hereditary monarchy, it is easy to train princes, from birth, to be kings. If the training is at all competent, they acquire both the habits of statesmanship and the requisite propositional knowledge to rule wisely. Maybe the training won’t be competent. But, in a representative system, no one even makes a serious attempt at such training. We are governed by amateurs.

The fact that kings are trained – even competently trained – to rule wisely doesn’t mean that they will do so. They might have all sorts of incentives to pursue policies detrimental to their subjects. Maybe. But (a) they aren’t as beholden to the people as representatives (and so needn’t succumb to rash popular pressures), (b) there is more of an opportunity to (from birth) inculcate in them a sense of civic duty and (c) they are materially secure. The second potential advantage of a hereditary monarchy, then, is that it is easier both to normalize an hereditary monarch into caring primarily about the good of his country, and to remove the main incentives – money and power – to govern poorly.

In short, it’s arguable that a monarch is more likely both to have the capacity to be a better ruler than a representative and to realize that capacity. So the two “potentially big advantages” monarchism has over representative systems imply that, potentially, monarchies are much better at promoting social harmony than their representative counterparts.

[Spaz Man]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
Bedrock of our identity, ha! Do you really think that little of the British people that the only thing holding us together is this single family?! Also, why would a Presidency cost more? Ireland's presidency is 10 times cheaper than out monarchy...


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

You very well know that the history of the British Isles has been defined by the monarchy and its decisions. The Queen doesn't take a salary while the Irish President gets a nice 250000 euros for doing the exact same thing.

[QwentyJ]

We'd just become A.N. Other nation if we adopted a presidential system. Personally, I think it would be ****ing boring.

[sclez1]

(Original post by gladders)
You want meritocracy? Blimey. Forget electing the office then.




First, in an hereditary monarchy, it is easy to train princes, from birth, to be kings. If the training is at all competent, they acquire both the habits of statesmanship and the requisite propositional knowledge to rule wisely. Maybe the training won’t be competent. But, in a representative system, no one even makes a serious attempt at such training. We are governed by amateurs.

The fact that kings are trained – even competently trained – to rule wisely doesn’t mean that they will do so. They might have all sorts of incentives to pursue policies detrimental to their subjects. Maybe. But (a) they aren’t as beholden to the people as representatives (and so needn’t succumb to rash popular pressures), (b) there is more of an opportunity to (from birth) inculcate in them a sense of civic duty and (c) they are materially secure. The second potential advantage of a hereditary monarchy, then, is that it is easier both to normalize an hereditary monarch into caring primarily about the good of his country, and to remove the main incentives – money and power – to govern poorly.

In short, it’s arguable that a monarch is more likely both to have the capacity to be a better ruler than a representative and to realize that capacity. So the two “potentially big advantages” monarchism has over representative systems imply that, potentially, monarchies are much better at promoting social harmony than their representative counterparts.

That was very well argued so fair play to you - made me think! However, I do have issues with it and stick to my original position.

1. "we are governed by amateurs". I think this idea of training the monarch into their role (which actually sounds a little barbaric, another case against the monarchy) can be applied to the 'amateurs' that govern us. Our prime ministers come from Eton etc., so in that sense they too have been trained for the role.
2. I think they may well succumb to rash pressures, though not motivated by power and money, they're motivated by popularity, which isn't necessarily a good thing.
3. A Prime Minister must be intelligent, whereas no training could perfect a mentally incompetent monarch and therefore their rule wouldn't be adequate.
4. This idea that the monarch is socialised into caring for his/her country I challenge. Socialisation does play a huge role, but it seems that the chances of a Prime Minister caring about the country are far higher. I say this because though material may be a motivation, most will genuinely want change; let's not make negative assumptions. On the other hand. a monarch may well be born as a character that tends not to care much about the state of the country (as many don't) and therefore even a socialised monarch wouldn't care as much for their country as a person that had dedicated their life to improving it. i think this idea of money and power as motivation has been over emphasised.

Seriously though, you have made me think

[ForKicks]

(Original post by sclez1)
That was very well argued so fair play to you - made me think! However, I do have issues with it and stick to my original position.

1. "we are governed by amateurs". I think this idea of training the monarch into their role (which actually sounds a little barbaric, another case against the monarchy) can be applied to the 'amateurs' that govern us. Our prime ministers come from Eton etc., so in that sense they too have been trained for the role.
2. I think they may well succumb to rash pressures, though not motivated by power and money, they're motivated by popularity, which isn't necessarily a good thing.
3. A Prime Minister must be intelligent, whereas no training could perfect a mentally incompetent monarch and therefore their rule wouldn't be adequate.
4. This idea that the monarch is socialised into caring for his/her country I challenge. Socialisation does play a huge role, but it seems that the chances of a Prime Minister caring about the country are far higher. I say this because though material may be a motivation, most will genuinely want change; let's not make negative assumptions. On the other hand. a monarch may well be born as a character that tends not to care much about the state of the country (as many don't) and therefore even a socialised monarch wouldn't care as much for their country as a person that had dedicated their life to improving it. i think this idea of money and power as motivation has been over emphasised.

Seriously though, you have made me think

But the role of the Queen and the PM are different. It is like sales and marketing

What would ever lead you to believe that the monarchy wouldn't care about the country? It is just assumption.

[gladders]

(Original post by sclez1)
That was very well argued so fair play to you - made me think! However, I do have issues with it and stick to my original position.

I respect that. You at least recognise other positions, unlike other people here!

1. "we are governed by amateurs". I think this idea of training the monarch into their role (which actually sounds a little barbaric, another case against the monarchy) can be applied to the 'amateurs' that govern us. Our prime ministers come from Eton etc., so in that sense they too have been trained for the role.

Well not everyone here would probably approve of their PMs coming from Eton and it's not true anyway - there have been a number who are comprehensively taught. In any case, it does not train you for the specific job of PM but a range of tasks. It's good at generalism, not specification.

2. I think they may well succumb to rash pressures, though not motivated by power and money, they're motivated by popularity, which isn't necessarily a good thing.

There is indeed a temptation for that, yes, but then the monarchy balances the temptation to popularity against the need never to nark off Parliament. Regardless of the monarchy's general popularity Parliament could extinguish the monarchy in a heartbeat. An elected president would be stronger and more capable of playing these two against each other.

3. A Prime Minister must be intelligent, whereas no training could perfect a mentally incompetent monarch and therefore their rule wouldn't be adequate.

If they were mentally incompetent to the point you suggest we'd probably have a regency, or the monarch themselves would be heavily pressured to pass as much of the public duties as possible to other, more charismatic royals. It's a team effort, after all.

4. This idea that the monarch is socialised into caring for his/her country I challenge. Socialisation does play a huge role, but it seems that the chances of a Prime Minister caring about the country are far higher. I say this because though material may be a motivation, most will genuinely want change; let's not make negative assumptions. On the other hand. a monarch may well be born as a character that tends not to care much about the state of the country (as many don't) and therefore even a socialised monarch wouldn't care as much for their country as a person that had dedicated their life to improving it. i think this idea of money and power as motivation has been over emphasised.

I agree that I may have overegged the point; nonetheless I think my original point still stands. Many PMs do genuinely care for the country but they have a tendency to mix party interests with national interests, or may be concerned with achieving a 'legacy' for the brief time they in the chair. A monarch has less of a temptation to do this - they are already at the peak of their power and are guaranteed a place, however slight, in the history books. Moreover their place in the books is determined by how successfully they pass on the office to their heirs - they have a vested interested in doing the job well until they die, while a PM may be tempted to make things as difficult as possible for their successor.

Seriously though, you have made me think

Thanks, you're a fresh change of attitude from the normal types around here I used to be a firm republic myself a few years back but I was 'converted' on the basis of a good number of utilitarian arguments for monarchy, and the lack of a real need to adopt a republic.