What does good does the Monarchy really do ?

Repped this. The idea that you can force people into subscribing into the notion of total equality through methods such as extreme levels of taxation is completely false. It would damage innovation and widen the huge fractures that already are prevalent in our society.

Such a moral change (where people see giving their wealth to the less fortunate as just the normal state of affairs) can only come from within the society itself, not exerted onto the people by some sort of government.

Rocks, much fascination, much culture

It even predates the monarchy.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I think that Britain got rid of most of its culture with the introduction of the monarchy which is a shame

Which is not was anybody was claiming.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I was commending a point made by a previous poster and expanding on it. Returning to this topic, until someone makes an argument against the monarchy which is not based on false premises, than I see no reason to support the abolishment of it.

What false premises would these be?

I do not particularly care about the monarchy, I was just pointing out the absurdity of the argument against them that 'everyone should be born equal'

If someone wants to pursue this argument, do it in full measure. Campaign against private education, healthcare and business. Encourage a universal state where every child is born equal. Just do not force this dogma onto me whilst you send your kid to private school.

I am not against anyone campaigning to change this moral nature of society. I respect them greatly for standing by such strong principles. Where I have problems is when people feel they should have the liberty to force others into what they believe. This is wrong.

One of them I have already given. The premise that 'Every child should be born equal' is completely absurd.

That isn't the argument. As I've pointed out in this thread, people will never be born nor raised equally. However, there are things that we can do as a society to level the playing field. Arguing that because we can never achieve a utopia of perfect equality, we must believe in the complete opposite - hereditary rule - is just a bad, defeatist argument full stop.

I respect that view. I am also against hereditary rule. The monarch in Great Britain has little to zero powers so therefore I would not class Britain as a hereditary ruled country. The best system we have is democracy, and the democratic will of the nation is to have a monarchy.

Would you support the government of a society abolishing the monarchy if it was against the democratic will of the people?

Nobody is arguing that. We are arguing that where there is an opportunity to level the playing field without hurting anyone else - what an economist would call Pareto efficiency - that's what we as a society should pursue. Your responsibility in this argument is to tell us why removing the monarchy would be detrimental to our economy/society as a whole, not to make sweeping claims about the opposing argument.

1. There are various studies which argue for either side, but I believe the studies which state that the monarchy is an economic benefit for our country.

3. It is a unifying factor within the commonwealth. Although the commonwealth does include nations which do not have the queen as head of state, I believe that our relationships with the ones that do are better.

4. It prevents presidential families that our prevalent in the USA. These are hereditary systems which actually do end up with a huge amount of power within the country.

5. It can operate as a bridge between communities. Although I believe in fundamental British values, there are many in our country who do not. They believe that we should only exist as a collection of entirely contrasting cultures. I think that this ideology does immense damage to our society, and that anything that combats this should be encouraged.

Because since the French decided to get rid of their royals nobody visits the Louvre at all... If you are arguing for tourist attractions, that's fine, though of course our greatest (and most profitable) tourist attractions have nothing to do with the Royals. Royals do not need to inhabit these buildings. This covers point two.

Personally I think the Commonwealth is just a celebration of our imperial past and should be done away with. It links us with awful regimes as well as nicer democracies. Our greatest friend in the world is the United States, even after they decided to kick us (and our Royals) out. We are important to each other because of our cultural/economic/political similarities/objectives. You don't need a Queen to maintain that relationship, nor do you need one to maintain a relationship with India (for instance), who are getting pretty bored of us even though we have Commonwealth links, or Australia or New Zealand or Canada.

That, as I've already stated, is a product of their economic system. It's not an inherent product of a Republican form of government.

That isn't the argument. As I've pointed out in this thread, people will never be born nor raised equally. However, there are things that we can do as a society to level the playing field. Arguing that because we can never achieve a utopia of perfect equality, we must believe in the complete opposite - hereditary rule - is just a bad, defeatist argument full stop.

It's meritocratic.

It is a shame that our system of lobbying allows for vested interests to 'hold to hostage' our government. However, as you just pointed out, other interests may often act as counteracting forces. Ultimately if enough public pressure is exerted on a government, they will say no to big business. That this doesn't frequently happen I would say happens to be due to the issue that the funding/organisational capabilities of said big business are often, but not always, greater.

If the Queen or any member of the Royal family lobbies government, they are able to do so purely by their birth. This is not meritocratic.

Princess Michael of Kent carries out many engagements for the queen, so surely the queen is responsible for her? Her comments only give me the impression that many of the things the royal family say or do in public that are passed off as harmless (e.g. Philip's casual racism, Harry's choice of fancy dress, William's pursuit of foxes, Charles's views on homoeopathy, and this example with Michael) are representative of a certain trend. I wonder what her majesty's views actually are?

The British flag is not of course completely representative of the UK

and the full version of her majesty's anthem is rather nauseous.

You view is probably hugely tied up with Elizabeth II rather than Edward VII or Edward VIII.

When the highly regarded Victoria accepted a title as Empress as a whim and turned the country into mausoleum for forty years in terms of atmosphere it is hard to see that 'the monarchy' fits with what the public needs and wants.

Whether they should be a national symbol - by one of them being our head of state - is what we are debating. To people who genuinely believe in meritocracy, their being put on a pedestal because they happened to be born is embarrassing. You haven't told us why we are wrong.

I would be for frequently-held referenda on the matter. Perhaps every ten years, or upon the abdication of a monarch, or if a reasonable number of petitions call for a snap referendum - as in Switzerland.

This process would require the impartiality of organisations such as the BBC, which I am afraid to say currently have a Royal bias - they are quite good in terms of not picking a side on most matters. Republican views should be given reasonable coverage. Where, for instance, a fawning puff piece pops up in the six o'clock news from time to time, at least one Republican should be given the opportunity to be interviewed about the matter. Referenda coverage should be similar to that of election coverage, private organisations are free to pick a side, but those funded by taxpayers' money must be impartial and provide equal coverage of the arguments for and against.

I think were the issue up for a real debate in the country, a lot of people would realise that, for instance, the tourism myth is bunk, the Royals do get involved in politics and have a great many contacts to cover up for them... I just don't think people care that much either way really (I imagine lots of people claiming to support the monarchy in these polls probably have a lot in common with those who put themselves down as a Christian on the census even though they haven't been to church in a decade), but for me it's a matter of principle.