The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

What does good does the Monarchy really do ?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Maz93
The royals are not equal before the law, they can hide behind the royal secrets act.


The what? Such an Act doesn't exist.

The position of monarch is influential far more influential than a judge or the police, and they are not equal before the law therefore they lack the accountability as they are also unelected.


And yet there are countries which give judges enormous legislative power while not being elected, the United States being a powerful example. If that's a democracy, where a body of twelve men appointed for life can overturn democratically enacted, if illiberal, laws, then we, with an inherited monarch who can only raise points in private, certainly are.

Charles has done so much damage to the fight against homeopathy for example as he supports it.


Homeopathy, as much as I detest it, is on the NHS because of the reasoned decision of ministers. Prince Charles has made no impact there. There are plenty of republics in Europe which have it, after all.

Charles also lack neutrality which is essential for the head of state - he has also said he will continue to further those interests when he is King - which is wrong.


Not at all. He's not monarch - he's Heir to the Throne, and this notion that the Heir should be as rigidly publicly impartial as the monarch is not true. It could well be that such a convention is evolving, but it hasn't yet, and I disagree with it.

As for when he's King, the fact is he will be under considerably greater restraints and a set of older, clearer, and more enforced conventions that mean that, whatever he says in private (and he has the constitutional right to say his piece), he has absolutely no means to force his will upon ministers. There's nothing wrong or undemocratic about that.

I know that the presidents in ireland and germany also have meetings with the PM but they are elected and there are limits on how long they can be in power - we have no such protection.


Not really. The point we're discussing is whether what they say is a reasonable right to have, and you've already conceded that it is. You have no idea if the President of Germany has pushed Chancellor Merkel to kick Greece out of the Eurozone, and you still wouldn't know about it, and he wouldn't be re-selected by the Parliament on that basis.
Original post by Maz93
I hate this 'President Blair' argument that monarchists come up - I don't think it would happen, I think a lot of people in this country are very angry over Iraq and I seriously doubt that he would ever be elected as head of state, and if he was and he was terrible we could vote him out anyway. Yes it would cost us money to hold elections etc etc but we wouldn't have all the hangers on aka Edward and Andrew and their children. I think what is important is what it says about us a society, its recognising that we are all equal, we are all born equal and we in this country all have equal oppourunity to reach the highest position in this land the head of state which is impossible, yes you can be Prime Minister but that is not the same as head of state.

People like the romance of the royals - the fairy tale aspect. Kate must have been a godsend for them I mean what good PR a royal marrying a commoner. We do have a choice, there is always a choice we can accept the status quo or we can fight for a republic. People once laughed at the idea of the SNP holding a referendum on independence, my grandad got laughed at in the street when he was younger for supporting the SNP - but look at what they did. If people are willing to open their eyes and not just accept the PR bull**** the royals give out through the BBC etc they could fight for a Republic

A lot of people were very unhappy with Blair during Iraq, but the electorate still voted him back in with a significant majority.

You're a cyberNat.

This explains a lot.

Why did the SNP do such a massive u turn on the monarchy? Remember when the wanted to get rid of the monarchy? Mever when they also wanted outside of europe, NATO and never wanted to adopt the €?
Original post by MatureStudent36
No they couldn't.

Could an elected head of state say what happened in 1962?

An elected head of state would likely be Tony Blair at the moment. Do you want that man and his odious wife representing the UK further?

An elected head of state requires elections. That means every four years a politiciser election and a long standing financial outlay for security for the last president, and the one before and the one before.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.


If you don't like Tony Blair, you don't have to vote for him as your head of state. That's the beauty of it.

Getting the idea?
Provide £80m to the treasury they don't actually have to
Act as head of state without having to pay for an elected official
Act as ambassadors without having to add more to the government pay roll
Hold the commonwealth together (okay, maybe that's a bit radical)
Questionably, boost tourism

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by The Dictator
If you don't like Tony Blair, you don't have to vote for him as your head of state. That's the beauty of it.

Getting the idea?


my roof hasn't leaked so I wont go through huge expense at replacing it every four years.

Get the idea?
There are certain political powers that, on the one hand, must be kept out of the hands of politicians at all costs lest they misuse them for their own purposes, but on the other hand must be allowed to continue to exist as a safeguard against tyranny. I'm thinking here of things like the power to decline Parliament's choice of Prime Minister, to dismiss the Prime Minister, to refuse to assent to Acts of Parliament, to prorogue Parliament against its will and to take direct command of the armed forces - things which should never be done in normal circumstances but should not be ruled out completely. Remember, after all, that Hitler's and Mussolini's seizures of power were all done completely legally and with the consent of the people.

So who should we give those powers to? It seems to me that the job requires a person who can genuinely be said to be apolitical, who has had a lifetime of training in restraint, who is not beholden to anybody and who cannot possibly rule by themselves - in other words, someone like the Queen.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by MatureStudent36
my roof hasn't leaked so I wont go through huge expense at replacing it every four years.

Get the idea?


Actually, our roof has leaked, and has been leaking for a long time. The royals are not the most accountable bunch, and much of what they've gotten up to in these last few years is questionable. Secretly lobbying government ministers to shoot down laws that threaten their interests? Interfering with the constitutional process? Wasting taxpayers' money? All this and more...
Original post by The Dictator
Actually, our roof has leaked, and has been leaking for a long time. The royals are not the most accountable bunch, and much of what they've gotten up to in these last few years is questionable.


They're not less accountable than judges or foreign Heads of State, and Parliament can unseat them at will.

Secretly lobbying government ministers to shoot down laws that threaten their interests?


How so?

Interfering with the constitutional process?


How so?

Wasting taxpayers' money?


How so?

All this and more...


Like what?
Original post by The Dictator
Actually, our roof has leaked, and has been leaking for a long time. The royals are not the most accountable bunch, and much of what they've gotten up to in these last few years is questionable. Secretly lobbying government ministers to shoot down laws that threaten their interests? Interfering with the constitutional process? Wasting taxpayers' money? All this and more...


And having a president that needs reflecting every four years would change that how?

Out of interest, which self interests have the royal family served? They've had year on year reductions in expenditure. Lost the royal yacht. Had the queens flight reduced and been more transparent than ever .

I can't see how you think the royals waste tax payers money. UK Plc spent £30 billion last year servicing debt. Most of which was run up fundinh the nhs and welfare spending. Let's talk about those debt payements for a waste.
Also, for the past 25 years, the Royal Family pretty much ran on the level of public funding last established in 1991. 1991. In real terms, the expense of the monarchy has shrunk, while the cost of government has ballooned.
Original post by gladders
Also, for the past 25 years, the Royal Family pretty much ran on the level of public funding last established in 1991. 1991. In real terms, the expense of the monarchy has shrunk, while the cost of government has ballooned.

And people seem to forget they practically fund themselves, and Mr Rees-Mogg has pointed out on at least one occasion in parliament they effectively gift most of their lands and the associated revenue to parliament, to the tune of £200m, they then get back £30m, so they are, for all intents and purposes, paying an 85% rate of tax, of course, get rid of the monarchy and suddenly the exchequer has £80m less, so much for costing the state too much.
Original post by bibliboo
I know, I'm sure they're lovely as people but I'm not that bothered as well. The palace, the guards, the parades, weddings etc, it's just an expensive show for the Americans and other tourists.

They're benefits spongers really.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Original post by Maz93
The thing I don't get is there are people starving in this country, we can barely fund our NHS yet we waste billions of pounds on the monarchy and for what ? so they put on a show for the tourists ? not to mention the fact its probably psychologically damaging for the royals themselves. They are not value for money, we spend more on them then we get back from tourism and they are interfering in government which is dangerous as they are unelected. It beggars belief that the majority of people in the country still support them - I just don't understand why ?


The ignorance in this thread is astounding. We only "pay" the monarch due to a deal between a long-ago parliament, which made royal land public. This public land, whilst still owned by the royals, the funds it produces go to the public coffers which exceeds the royal budget. We profit from them way before their tourism dorra.

Also, you are suggesting that traditions are pointless, social cohesion is pointless, national identity is pointless. Why are you against these things and how do we benefit from not having an identity? Monarchy is the rule of one; everyone looks to the monarchy as a pillar of excellence to be mirrored throughout our own lives. Well spoken, well mannered, artistic and strong family values and a sense of communal duty. Without a monarch to constrain our democracy, it's pure mob rule.
Original post by Maz93
The thing I don't get is there are people starving in this country, we can barely fund our NHS yet we waste billions of pounds on the monarchy and for what ? so they put on a show for the tourists ? not to mention the fact its probably psychologically damaging for the royals themselves. They are not value for money, we spend more on them then we get back from tourism and they are interfering in government which is dangerous as they are unelected. It beggars belief that the majority of people in the country still support them - I just don't understand why ?

They cost us billions how exactly? If we have such issues in funding then how exactly does a cut of £80m help?
Oh, and that's before considering the expense of hiring more people (and electing as appropriate) to do the roles the royals do.
Reply 33
Avatar for Aj12
Aj12
18
Original post by Jammy Duel
And people seem to forget they practically fund themselves, and Mr Rees-Mogg has pointed out on at least one occasion in parliament they effectively gift most of their lands and the associated revenue to parliament, to the tune of £200m, they then get back £30m, so they are, for all intents and purposes, paying an 85% rate of tax, of course, get rid of the monarchy and suddenly the exchequer has £80m less, so much for costing the state too much.


What gets me is that people seem to think the UK government would just seize those lands were we to abolish the monarchy. I can only imagine the court cases.
Original post by Aj12
What gets me is that people seem to think the UK government would just seize those lands were we to abolish the monarchy. I can only imagine the court cases.
Would be and open and closed case
Original post by Aj12
What gets me is that people seem to think the UK government would just seize those lands were we to abolish the monarchy. I can only imagine the court cases.


Something I'm unsure of- when a monarch dies, do the gubmint "steal" 40% of their wealth? Inheritance tax enforced?
Reply 36
Avatar for Aj12
Aj12
18
Original post by HigherMinion
Something I'm unsure of- when a monarch dies, do the gubmint "steal" 40% of their wealth? Inheritance tax enforced?


Their exempt, they do pay income tax though.
Original post by Maz93
It costs the tax payer more in security than the charity makes in donations for a visit from the royals.


Care to share your figures on that one.
Original post by MatureStudent36
A lot of people were very unhappy with Blair during Iraq, but the electorate still voted him back in with a significant majority.

You're a cyberNat.

This explains a lot.

Why did the SNP do such a massive u turn on the monarchy? Remember when the wanted to get rid of the monarchy? Mever when they also wanted outside of europe, NATO and never wanted to adopt the €?


Where is your evidence Blair would be re-elected? Who are you to denigrate whoever the public chose in any case?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
They cost us billions how exactly? If we have such issues in funding then how exactly does a cut of £80m help?
Oh, and that's before considering the expense of hiring more people (and electing as appropriate) to do the roles the royals do.


I think you should look at how much the monarchy really costs, and how much tourism revenue it is really responsible for bringing in (directly or indirectly) before you go down the 'terrific value for money' line. People would be able to go inside Buckingham Palace for a start, and venture onto the grounds of Windsor Castle, which the humble Lizzie forbids her peasants the right to do so at present.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you