[Fusion]

They serve their country

The lads blown to smithertines in Iraq serve their country not the Queen for cutting ribbons

She's over 80 years old

That doesn't stop a car plant worker from being made redundant. Why should society put up with a 'past it' head of state.

She takes her role seriously

Do you not realise that it's in her her own financial interests to tow the line and secure state financed security etc i.e. Fergie's kids on gap years in South America had 24hr police protection provided by the taxpayer. The Monarchs are in effect backed by the UK taxpayer (what would Russian Oligarchs give for this sort of arrangement....)


Secondly, many people in all different professions take their role seriously but that doesn't excuse them from job cuts.

She doesn't effect politics

Well lets get rid of them

She does effect politics

Unelected! Get rid of them!

[Cephalus]

Yeah but the real aim of our monarchy is to protect us and to uphold our democracy. If the government tried to establish a dictatorship, she is the only one standing between us and the dictatorship oppressing us

[Fusion]

(Original post by Cephalus)
Yeah but the real aim of our monarchy is to protect us and to uphold our democracy. If the government tried to establish a dictatorship, she is the only one standing between us and the dictatorship oppressing us

Rubbish. They'd hedge their bets just like financiers.

[Cephalus]

Yeah I don't think so. Like you said the Queen takes her role seriously. I think she would try to protect it if she could. Just like anyone who loves this country would.

[+ polarity -]

(Original post by Fusion)
Rubbish. They'd hedge their bets just like financiers.

I don't know what that means, but can you honestly say that when there is nothing to suggest that that would be the case?

[tface]

I think the most important point is the unelected part.

[Brussels_Junta]

(Original post by tface)
I think the most important point is the unelected part.

she doesn't need to be elected because she doesn't govern the country. nice try though

[Aramiss18]

I find the very idea of Royalty repulsive. That said, I respect Dear Old Lizzie and wouldn't like to see her ousted-much the same way I wouldn't want an old lady in any other form of life being forced out.

[Cephalus]

(Original post by Aramiss18)
I find the very idea of Royalty repulsive. That said, I respect Dear Old Lizzie and wouldn't like to see her ousted-much the same way I wouldn't want an old lady in any other form of life being forced out.

Oh I looked on your profile and it said socialist society =]

[Larmas]

In removing the monarchy you would encounter hundreds of years worth of legislation and having to completely change much of the parliamentary, juridical and military workings.

[Aramiss18]

(Original post by Cephalus)
Oh I looked on your profile and it said socialist society =]

What's your point?

[Lady Maleficent]

(Original post by Fusion)
They serve their country

The lads blown to smithertines in Iraq serve their country not the Queen for cutting ribbons.

What you describe does not have a monopoly on the term 'serve'.

She's over 80 years old

That doesn't stop a car plant worker from being made redundant. Why should society put up with a 'past it' head of state.

That's how the system works by law. Unless she committed some grave act - nobody can force her to abdicate. And due to Edward VIII's actions, she is thoroughly against the notion of abdication.

Further, her family members support her role as Head of State.

She takes her role seriously

Do you not realise that it's in her her own financial interests to tow the line and secure state financed security etc i.e.

She takes her role seriously because she believes in duty and that's essentially how she was brought up.

If the Queen wished to quit, she could easily live very comfortably and not have the downsides that come with being trapped in a gilded cage. The jewellery collection she personally owns is priceless alone.

Fergie's kids on gap years in South America had 24hr police protection provided by the taxpayer. The Monarchs are in effect backed by the UK taxpayer (what would Russian Oligarchs give for this sort of arrangement....)

As is the case with every Head of State around the world and their close relatives.

She doesn't effect politics

Well lets get rid of them

That's not the point, many heads of state around the world have little influence on actual governance.

She does effect politics

Unelected! Get rid of them!

There are legitimacies that lie beyond the ballot box.

[Snagprophet]

Tbh it matters not. We still get more back from tourism than what the taxpayers put in. In effect, tax isn't being taken from elsewhere because of the profits of the tourism. Then subsequent money, gets put back into the system. So the idea that tax is wasted on them is nonsense. Even if some of what props the Queen up is spent on security for the more obscure royals on their gap years.

Also, unless you're some kind of jealousfag who can't stand someone having more luxury than themselves, people on both sides of the political spectrum can unite over an impartial head of state, as opposed to having a Conservative/Labour head of state that 70% of the country hates.

Whereas 50% of the USA detests their head of state, the vast majority of our sovereign state is happy with ours.

[Spaz Man]

A President would cost money for doing barely anything as well. The role of Head of State is ceremonial so why does it really matter?

[tface]

(Original post by Brussels_Junta)
she doesn't need to be elected because she doesn't govern the country. nice try though

She costs incredible amounts of taxpayers money. She represents the taxpayers as a country. She is the head of our state, and we have a choice in none of these things.

[LoudMusicLover]

(Original post by tface)
She costs incredible amounts of taxpayers money. She represents the taxpayers as a country. She is the head of our state, and we have a choice in none of these things.

Boooy, do I love free-thinking people.

Sheep have their rightful place in the field.

[Snagprophet]

(Original post by tface)
She costs incredible amounts of taxpayers money. She represents the taxpayers as a country. She is the head of our state, and we have a choice in none of these things.

So you'd rather have a politician as head of state so that 70% of the country can detest him/her? Because that's what'll happen. 30% vote Conservative, 30% vote Labour, which of the two wins will get slightly more depending on what the parties have done recently. 20% will vote LD and the rest would be split between the UKIP, the Greens and the BNP. So your argument for the voter's representation is flawed because only around 30% will actually be happy with the result. Even if you do the whole 'Proportional Representation' it doesn't mean more than 30% of the country will get their way anyway.

[Brussels_Junta]

(Original post by tface)
She costs incredible amounts of taxpayers money. She represents the taxpayers as a country. She is the head of our state, and we have a choice in none of these things.

ah yes an incredible 59p a year. but so do civil servants - i dont see you demanding an election for each one of them - and they actually govern us (there are probably tens of thousands of them).

youre just looking for any little excuse to impose your cultural marxist ways on the rest of us

[SillyEddy]

The Queen, for some of the time, is a bit like an emergency brake - You might not think you need her, but when the time comes, you'll be glad that she is there.

She can dissolve governments if she believes that they're not in the best interests of her people. How? Well she controls basically everything. A tonne of the services in this country are sworn to serve the Queen - Not the government. So how about corruption of the monarchy? Possible, I really don't know what would happen then. I'm sure a lot of countries would be annoyed if either the government or monarchy went mad here.


The rest of the time the Queen is a giant fundraiser for the country - She brings in far more money than she costs. She helps to govern the laws made in this country. I suppose it's not necessary, but it's just another buffer from corrupt politicians passing laws by other corrupt politicians.


A lot of her other work is ceremonial - Opening things, seeing people, having parties. She's a figure for the country, and is typically well respected. It's a means of other countries, and our own people, knowing that we're still being thought of. She is old though, she has her limits. I'm sure William will be a bit more "active" in his role when we see him.

[justanotherposter]

She has little power, and what power she does have she'd never use or else there would be a revolt, and she brings way more money in than she spends in the form of tourism so I don't see why we should get rid of her.