[kka25]

(Original post by Psyk)
If the the monarchy is "fundamentally" sexist, what about it is sexist since they changed the law? Is it sexist because the wife of the monarch gets to be Queen where as the husband of one is only a prince?

Because Elizabeth wanted to have some BDSM with Philly of course

[sclez1]

(Original post by ForKicks)
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.

Haha yeah that's true, I guess I'd be in favour of a President. And it's a complete asumption; what I was saying was that you also can't assume they are going to care. You can assume neither, but his post said a monarch would care about the country. I'm not saying that's always untrue, but I'm saying it might be.

[ArsenalBen]

(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.

First of all the tourism point is completely untrue, the Palace of Versailles and other equivalent French former royal residences receive more visitors than the ones in the UK, despite there not being a living Monarch.
And even if any of the monetary arguments were true, the monarchy is basically a completely undemocratic and unequal institution which for me override any financial positives for the country - how can we be a democratic country if you can only be head of state because you're part of one family?
Your point about it bringing 'Pride to our nation' is rubbish - I feel completely embarassed that we are one of they few countries in the world who still believes that the people are 'Subjects' not citizens and shouldn't have the right to elect their head of state.

[gladders]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
A president doesn't need golden carriages and several palaces. Stop talking out of your arse. Ireland's President costs £1.8 million. Compare that with over £180 million. Case closed.

Ireland is considerably smaller than the UK. If you want to make a comparison, try to avoid a crooked one, yeah? How about Germany? Their presidency costs roughly the same as ours PLUS received a salary. I have heard tell Italy's costs about £200 million in all.

Your figure does not include the cost of security provided by the Police and the Army, the lost revenue of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster and countless other expenses.

The Duchies are personal property of the Queen and the Prince of Wales. What business is it of yours?

The security costs would remain under a republic.

Taxpayers are kept in the dark about the exact cost of the monarchy, due to the royal household's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and widespread misunderstanding about the nature of the royal family's finances.

Royal finances are presented to Parliament annually for consideration.

Crown Estate

Civil List

Privy Purse

Grant-in-Aid for Transport

Grant-in-Aid for buildings

There is also a sum supplied by Government Departments for specific duties which are also supplied to Parliament.

Total

Are you going to bury this tired old claim for good?

Her "office" isn't necessary. We can pay some other twit to walk around shaking hands with people and making small talk for about a hundredth of the price. You make it sound as if the Queen actually serves some sort of useful purpose

You have no evidence to back up your claim it would be cheaper to employ someone else. I have already said the German and Italian presidents cost similar to our monarchy.

If the office is so pointless, why does every other country in the world have a head of state too?

Of course we pay higher tax because of the monarchy... where do you think that £200 million a year comes from? From thin air?

Do you think other heads of state do their job for free? That their security staff don't get paid? That their presidential staff are also unpaid?

Please let me know when and with what law it changed.

Why don't you provide documentation of the law that states it to be true?

Of course they do. The idea of a monarchy is antiquated and barbaric. Other countries laugh at our medieval set up, it's nothing more than a morbid curiosity to them. What's good about having a system of privileges afforded to the latest inbred snob? When the ordinary person gets nothing.

More inferiority complex from a tired olf republican. Most of the rest of the world is fascinated, even envious of our rich history. 'The rest of the world' consists of a mixture of both republics and monarchies.

You wonder why republicanism is such a marginal issue in this country? Because there is nothing for the ordinary person to gain from the monarchy's abolition.

Yeah it's so hard going from 5 star hotel to 5 star hotel, having thousand pound meals and being on a lifelong holiday

You mean *gasp* like any other head of state?

Please do elaborate, what actual work is this that they do? Anyone can walk around shaking hands, pretending to be interested in the next person with that fake smile and making ****ty small talk. What's so hard about that?

The office of head of state is like diplomat, entertainer, psychiatrist, historian, civil servant and cultural icon rolled into one. Don't think that's hard? Why do you think so many musicians and artists succumb to drink and drugs? And if it's so easy, why do other countries still have presidents?

[quote]It would be much better not having a load of snotty inbreds who think they're better than everyone else, living a life of decadent luxury at the expense of ordinary people who are living through a recession. [quote]

Their luxury is not 'decadent'. The monarchy is comparatively frugal. Compared to other countries our head of state does not have their own plane, and there are anecdotes of royals doing the washing up and storing food in tupperwares

Not exactly dirt poor, of course, but again: would you expect a president to be doing this type of stuff? They would be enjoying the same palaces, the same transport, the same food and accomodation. You're talking nonsense if you think any of that would disappear.

It's the age where most intelligent people have clocked on that the right of divine kings is a load of old bollox used to justify enriching tyrants by stealing off their peoples.

Then why do 80% of the people still enjoy the monarchy? Ironically, in making your claim that the most intelligent agree with you, you're being astonishingly snotty and elitist.

LOL yeah where would the powers for that be? Ultimately the power rests with the monarch. Hence why she can depose elected ministers whenever she feels like it.

And when do you think was the last time the monarch removed an elected minister?

Parliament doesn't need those powers written down - they are inherent in its sovereign power. It has removed numerous monarchs in the past, and it can do it again. With the people behind Parliament, what do you think the monarchy could do?

Yes the Royal Wedding, the Diamond and Golden Jubilees were all FREE. What planet are you living on? It costs millions just to keep these parasites happy and stop people from trying to kill them off.

The royal wedding was paid for by the Duchy of Cornwall, and received no taxpayer money. The only excepting was policing and security, and you can't seriously expect me to believe you think this should be paid for privately. It was a public occasion, whether the monarchy wanted it to be or not. The police have a duty to keep the public safe.

The Jubilee is another public event, and one which is genuinely popular. It's the British equivalent of the 4th of July. Do you think the 4th of July is paying for parasites in America?

[gladders]

(Original post by ArsenalBen)
First of all the tourism point is completely untrue, the Palace of Versailles and other equivalent French former royal residences receive more visitors than the ones in the UK, despite there not being a living Monarch.

You can't compared Versailles with any British building - heck, anything short of the Pyramids is incomparable to Versailles! Buckingham Palace is akin to the Elysee Palace, and that's hardly a tourist attraction.

And even if any of the monetary arguments were true, the monarchy is basically a completely undemocratic and unequal institution which for me override any financial positives for the country - how can we be a democratic country if you can only be head of state because you're part of one family?

Because the government - the actual business end of the state - is open to absolutely everybody to become part of and participate in. The monarchy is there for the history and symbology it gives to the State.

Your point about it bringing 'Pride to our nation' is rubbish - I feel completely embarassed that we are one of they few countries in the world who still believes that the people are 'Subjects' not citizens and shouldn't have the right to elect their head of state.

Not true. Since 1981 we have been citizens.

Moreover the word 'subject' is needlessly demonised - it merely meant that subjects were 'subject' to the law and 'subject' to the protection of their lord or the King - in a time when the state barely extended out of the cities, it was an important and extremely positive thing. There was no distinction between subject and citizen, and both had equal rights in participating in government. The alternative was not being a subject and being exposed to all sorts of dangers.

[tj hughes]

(Original post by Psyk)
I can see the objection to the monarchy, but the Queen is hardly a dictator. It's not like she gets to make any of the decisions. Even what she says in the Queen's speech is decided by the government. She's not brutally suppressing the people like al-Assad is, nor does she really have the power to if she wanted.

Very true, although I see no benefit to having a monarch at all, and think we should make GB as democratic as possible. Furthermore, as a secularist, I find it very uncomfortable to have a monarch who is head of state AND head of a particular faith. Furthermore, it leads to discrimination as to who can become monarchs, since for instance, Catholics cannot (to the best of my knowledge)

[gladders]

(Original post by tj hughes)
Very true, although I see no benefit to having a monarch at all, and think we should make GB as democratic as possible.

Well there's no benefit from changing to a president either - except it will be an expensive and divisive image change, essentially. Having a constitutional monarch or an elected president wouldn't alter Britain's democratic nature one iota.

Furthermore, as a secularist, I find it very uncomfortable to have a monarch who is head of state AND head of a particular faith. Furthermore, it leads to discrimination as to who can become monarchs, since for instance, Catholics cannot (to the best of my knowledge)

A fair criticism, but again, this is something only peripheral to the central issue of the monarchy. You can disestablish the Church without removing the monarchy, and you can even have religious republics, such as Ireland.

[Раскольников]

(Original post by ForKicks)
The government is not a monarchy. It is the Commons that rule the country!

That is part of the problem with the current system. Essentially the head of government also has all the powers of a head of state on behalf of the monarch.

(Original post by ForKicks)
I also think a quote from a supporter of the French Revolution is hardly fair

lol

[gladders]

(Original post by Раскольников)
That is part of the problem with the current system. Essentially the head of government also has all the powers of a head of state on behalf of the monarch.

Bwah? The British PM has the same powers as that of the German Chancellor, or the Italian PM.

[Left Hand Drive]

(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.

As little as that may be, it should cost us NOTHING Yet we pay all this to a family who live in luxury and are so wealthy whilst pensioners decided wither to heat or eat in the winter..

[chrisawhitmore]

(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

Your second point about the crown land revenues is dead wrong. The Crown land is owned by the members of the royal family in the same way you or I could own the land our houses are built on. Taking it from them would be theft, pure and simple. At best it could be compulsory purchased, but that would be phenomenally expensive.

[gladders]

(Original post by Left Hand Drive)
As little as that may be, it should cost us NOTHING Yet we pay all this to a family who live in luxury and are so wealthy whilst pensioners decided wither to heat or eat in the winter..

They live in luxury on their own fortune - it has nothing to do with the taxpayers money the monarchy receives. The money we pay to them is for the maintenance of the office and would remain under a republic.

[kka25]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
The Crown land is owned by the members of the royal family in the same way you or I could own the land our houses are built on. Taking it from them would be theft, pure and simple.

And they took it from who I wonder

[Раскольников]

(Original post by gladders)
Bwah? The British PM has the same powers as that of the German Chancellor, or the Italian PM.

And?

I would still prefer if the head of state was in a position to actually be able to exercise a veto in order to protect the constitution (if we had one) or be able to veto a declaration of war etc, and as soon as the head of state has any power I can't see how we can justify this power being hereditary.

[gladders]

(Original post by Раскольников)
And?

I would still prefer if the head of state was in a position to actually be able to exercise a veto in order to protect the constitution (if we had one) or be able to veto a declaration of war etc, and as soon as the head of state has any power I can't see how we can justify this power being hereditary.

I find such a proposal to be repugnant and undemocratic. I much prefer a sovereign Parliament having the final say over a single elected official having a veto. The former is far more democratic.

If you're unhappy with Parliament authorising a declaration of war, then that's Parliament's fault - MPs are held to account for this sort of thing. The Head of State has absolutely no business interfering, whatever their origin of appointment.

[Раскольников]

(Original post by gladders)
I find such a proposal to be repugnant and undemocratic. I much prefer a sovereign Parliament having the final say over a single elected official having a veto. The former is far more democratic.

If you're unhappy with Parliament authorising a declaration of war, then that's Parliament's fault - MPs are held to account for this sort of thing. The Head of State has absolutely no business interfering, whatever their origin of appointment.

Then this leads to the question: why have a head of state at all? Why keep the monarch (or any other form) if they have no role to play?

[gladders]

(Original post by Раскольников)
Then this leads to the question: why have a head of state at all? Why keep the monarch (or any other form) if they have no role to play?

The do have a role to play. Do you think you're the only person to have asked this question? Why do you think other countries continue to have Heads of State?

The monarchy, besides being a symbol of British history and identity, is also a well of expertise and experience (you're bound to pick up a thing or two from 60 years on the throne) for ministers to inquire into if they wish. They are free to ignore but many ministers have found conversations with the monarch quite useful for clearing their heads and sorting out at least how to approach problems.

The monarchy also possesses certain powers that are vested in them in order to prevent their abuse by an elected official, such as declarations of emergency. The point is that if these were in the hands of the PM or some other official, they would be constantly tempted to make use of them to give themselves an advantage. The same goes for Parliament; with its in-built government majority, simply placing the powers in Parliament puts them at the hands of the government.

The monarch cannot on any terms interfere in the regular workings of government but their removal from the political competition means that if a crisis came up there is at least one person at the top who won't think of party advantage first. Here's hoping it never happens, but if there were ever an attempt by the government to undermine the very basis of democracy (such as doing away with the need for elections), the monarchy could and should resist such a measure.

[WillowSummers]

I chose to be in favour of the abolition of the monarchy as my speaking topic for my a2 French and Spanish exams, and it really annoyed me that this post came out shortly after I did them.

Nevertheless, although you're probably thinking about the English monarchy, in Spain there's the business with Urdangarin, the elephant hunting, "¿Porque no te callas?"... So there's several arguments for that.

Then, considering that republics such as France and Germany are much economically stronger than we are might have some bearing.

[gladders]

(Original post by WillowSummers)
Then, considering that republics such as France and Germany are much economically stronger than we are might have some bearing.

I think you're confusing causation and correlation. France and the UK tend to compete for the same spot in terms of economic clout; what about Japan? It's a monarchy and more impressive economically than either of them.

The presence or absence of monarchy makes no difference to economic performance.

[WillowSummers]

(Original post by gladders)
I think you're confusing causation and correlation. France and the UK tend to compete for the same spot in terms of economic clout; what about Japan? It's a monarchy and more impressive economically than either of them.

The presence or absence of monarchy makes no difference to economic performance.

And yet it often seems the case they spend more money for strictly unnecessary things than an elected head of state does (such as going on an elephant hunting trip, as I mentioned) probably 'cause they know they won't have to get re-voted during the next elections.

Incidentally, it's amusing that you completely ignored my other statements.