Anti monarchy paranoia

You both seem to be very uneducated on the atrocities caused by British imperialism.

People pull stuff like this out of their ass all the time. What did the Royal Family do to make you think this? Maybe they don't do 'normal' stuff because we the people would harass them constantly.

I would never, ever wish I was a royal. The thought of being jetted off to other countries to shake hands with old men and maintain international relations - can't think of anything worse. People like to create this image that they sit in palaces sipping tea and call us all scum, it's laughable. If you're going to oppose the monarchy at least do it for legitimate reasons and not this ad hominem nonsense.

What I have noticed is British people are very fearful of change

But change for change's sake is pointless. What about the system is actually broken? Sure there are ways to reform what goes on - and that is being done constantly - but the old adage of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind. Every country recognises the benefits of a ceremonial Head of State, even the US has had a (very very minor, I'll admit) movement to reinstate a 'Monarch-like figure' to take the ceremonial duties off the President's plate as he spends most of his time shaking hands for photos rather than on official duties.

The change would be beneficial to the country.

Does it not bother you at all how much is spent on the royal family?

If anything, reduce the amount of money they can receive. I don't see why we can't have an upper middle class or just a middle class monarchy as opposed to a filthy rich monarchy. Turn the entire Buckingham Palace into a museum if anything, and you'll see how many thousands of people that will pay just to set foot inside the entire palace. That would most likely draw in more tourism money too.

How?



No, because the exact same would be spent on any process to put in place and then 'run' an alternative Head of State, with accommodation and security required. So we'd make no saving whatsoever. We'd be worse off, in fact, because we wouldn't gain the money back from the Crown Estate.



Buckingham Palace already is a museum open to the public. Ok, not all of it, but it's been open for years for people to go into.
And even if we did dissolve the Monarchy, the family would still be independently wealthy, unless you're advocating theft?

Not at all. But what about atrocities conducted by Emperors, Presidents, Fuhrers and Il Duce's? It's not just Monarchs that have ballsed up in the past. Everyone has. You can't single one out.

I am an anti monarchy person i guess. Though i am not opposed to them representing britain as celebrities, however. I seem to think it is massively unfair, like the qualifications, also their deaths are taken more seriously and they have never really 'done' anything.
I am very girly so i guess in this world it can pass you by, but sometimes i just take a look out at our country, and wonder what we are doing. It just seems so - well strange.
The queen sends people out to war, her relatives go, get the badges and would never actually fight and be killed.
I am not a total commnuist but it also seems strange that people use up the energy resources and ge to keep the money.
I was wondering if anyone else in the uk had this point of view. In ways it seems like a loathing for the rich, the not free people.
I saw someone from oxford on here a boy, and he seemed to have something 'right' to say.

I highly doubt a Head of State would cost the taxpayer £33.3 million- £33.3 million a year. David Cameron sure as hell doesn't cost us that much, so why would a head of state?

Kicking the monarchy out and replacing them with a more accountable structure would be more beneficial to our economy and culture.

If Britain wants to maintain its reputation for having a strong government, then they need to respect their own democracy, minimise the deficit and kick them out.

I don't really know what exactly you want me to reply with here, we're talking specifically about the British monarchy who have the blood of millions on their hands historically. Pointing out "Emperors, Presidents and Fuhrers" has no relevance, and to say "you can't single X out because of Y" is a very, very rudimentary argument if we're debating history.

They have no diplomatic value, that is already established.

Their presence is merely symbolic, what I'm trying to say is that anyone that isn't primitive would not want to celebrate the monarchy, because they do not represent the values that pertain to a good, democratic society that was ideally designed by Western philosophers of the 18th century.

You're the one who brought up history. A history, I might add, that has naff all to do with the current family. Unless you're suggesting that anyone who might be in any way descended from someone who once broke the law must also themselves be considered a criminal I fail to see what relevancy it has. You're the one who has made the point of saying "But Kings have done x in the past" and I'm simply saying "so?" that's the past. Do you really think that that could happen in this day and age?!

Says who? I think you'll actually find the reality is very different. Just because you and others in this country may not believe it or not want to admit it does not make it fact. Other countries bend over backwards to impress when the Royal Family comes a calling and their citizens take extreme notice of it (for whatever reason) so the leaders of that country take significant notice and pull out all the stops. Ignoring that or refusing to acknowledge that is churlish in the extreme.

And why is symbolism such a bad thing? You'll also find that, simply, different people like different things and implying people are 'primitive' for having different opinions to you is likely to win you about zero debates.

x

nation of island-dwellers rejects democracy; support for monarchy continues to remain high

Beg indulgence to expand on a point you've made.

Let's say that your Great-great-great-great Grandfather was a murderer. Are you saying that I should treat you as a murderer?

There are many forms of democracy, your continued ignorance of this makes me chuckle, so I guess we're both laughing.

uhm this analogy kind of demonstrates your lack of historical knowledge and reading comprehension: "Great-great-great-great"? British Imperialism was still running strong in the 1900s... and I am not saying we should treat the Queen as a "murderer" - I'm saying that the monarchy - which - for the majority of its existence - has done nothing but pertain to values that would otherwise be rejected in modern society - and should have been abolished a long time ago. The Empire has dissolved but was that due to the Queen? No.

I'm referring to AV. It's a lot funnier when you actually understand the joke.

Maybe, maybe not. But it hasn't been and is still supported by the majority. That makes it a democratic decision. Is that so hard to understand? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong/doesn't mean that everyone else thinks the same way you do. Indeed, acknowledging that others have different opinions, different views and different ideals might help you better understand a great many things.

It's a lot funnier when you actually make amusing remarks. But do keep trying.

When did I ever say that the monarchy should be abolished because the majority want it to be abolished? Similarly, just because the majority are in favor of something doesn't make it equally right/wrong. Your arguments are becoming progressively weaker and you have yet to persuade me that the monarchy is a good thing and is not symbolic of our barbaric past.

You're doing feck all to convince me they're bad. I've met [some of] them. I like them on a personal level and my entire argument comes down to one single point; I fail to see what possible benefits we'd get from getting rid of them. Indeed, I only see downsides from getting rid of them, Not because of what they would no longer bring, but because of the negatives associated with any alternative. You've blathered on now for 5 or 6 posts and have yet to make any single point aside from your own inference.

You keep suggesting that the arguments are weak. If that were the case they'd be easy to counter. Yet you haven't. What does that tell you?

I could care less if I'm convincing you or not, or if you like the Royal Family on a personal level or not, because you've already demonstrated you know nothing about the history of the British monarchy, and have already derided "history" as useless.

I'm going to end this here. Going by your posts and terrible "analogies" you didn't even know that Elizabeth II was head during several imperialist invasions such as that of Egypt w/ France during the 1950s.

I know plenty and find your continued condescension intensely irritating and far beneath anybody seriously attempting debate. You're on here presenting a platform for discussion, bringing forth your opinions to influence the discussion and conversation and so far failing miserably. You are not showing what relevancy your views have, merely spouting discordant facts that affect nothing.

Yet despite all that, I'm showing you considerably more respect than you are showing me. Why? Could just be that I've got more class than you. Could be because you're being overly petulant. But whatever the reason is, you're not doing yourself any favours.


I also know that those incursions of which you speak were conceived, designed, instigated and overseen by politicians. What relevancy does the Crown have to that? If you are simply using the tenuous link that 'they were in charge' during the time then why couldn't I counter with the fact that they were also 'in charge' during the industrial revolution, something which proved of incredible benefit to the entire globe and that therefore they are a force for good?