The Student Room Group

Should we abolish the Monarchy?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by sleepysnooze
why can't camilla be queen?
kate isn't actually a descendent of a royal just like camilla isn't


There's actually a reason I'll look it up hold on


Posted from TSR Mobile
Couldn't find it, just kept saying she would be princess consort which is what Phillip is


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by paul514
There's actually a reason I'll look it up hold on


Posted from TSR Mobile


(saw your second reply too)
well that's strange - I'd also be interested to know the reason behind it
Original post by paul514
Camilla can't be queen just like Phillip isn't a King

Camilla will be Queen Consort; unlike with male Consorts, for females, the regal title is automatically bestowed when the spouse ascends to the throne. Under common law, the wife automatically assumes the equivalent rank of her husband. It does not go the other way, however.

That's not to say she won't be addressed publicly in a different manner, akin to how she is called 'Duchess of Cornwall' even though she is Princess of Wales.
I'm just confused at this point it must be some sort of Royal bloodline fix


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by soulnspirit
Why on earth would we abolish the Monarchy?

It's completely undemocratic, defies values of equality and one shouldn't be in a position of such power just because they were born into a certain family. The monarchy has no place in a progressive democracy.
Original post by AspiringLawyer01
It's completely undemocratic,


It's perfectly democratic.

defies values of equality and one shouldn't be in a position of such power just because they were born into a certain family. The monarchy has no place in a progressive democracy.


That's the ideological side, sure, but the practical always trumps, IMO.
Original post by gladders
It's perfectly democratic.
How is having an UNELECTED head of state in the slightest democratic?


That's the ideological side, sure, but the practical always trumps, IMO.

What is practical about a monarchy? It is my understanding that plenty of countries across the globe have no monarchy and i am not aware of them having any constitutional problems.
Original post by AspiringLawyer01
What is practical about a monarchy? It is my understanding that plenty of countries across the globe have no monarchy and i am not aware of them having any constitutional problems.


Oh, they may not be collapsing into anarchy but that doesn't necessarily mean they are doing tons better either...

Anyway, I'm not going to retread old ground, just can't be bothered. Read back in this thread and the many previous, tired old threads for a summary.
Never.
No we should not abolish the monarchy


Posted from TSR Mobile
I believe it should be abolished. It's undemocratic, archaic and, in practice, useless. It flies in the face of values that sit at the cornerstone of our modern society: democracy and meritocracy.
Of course.
Reply 334
Original post by Burridge
I believe it should be abolished. It's undemocratic, archaic and, in practice, useless. It flies in the face of values that sit at the cornerstone of our modern society: democracy and meritocracy.


And yet, in polls, they had an 80% approval rate
Original post by sw651
And yet, in polls, they had an 80% approval rate


First, let's not over-egg the pudding. Monarchy approval ratings - whilst at an all-time high, admittedly - generally fluctuate between 65-70% depending on the poll and the structure of the question.

Second, and more importantly, people's support for the monarchy often hinges on emotion; for many, it fosters up a sense of patriotism and nostalgia. It's like a big pantomime show - and the general public lap it up; royal weddings, Prince George, what Kate's wearing etc. Frankly, it's quite facile - this is a constitutional issue, people seem to forget that. In addition, I suspect that when people are judging the monarchy, often they're just expressing satisfaction with the reigning monarch at that time (i.e the Queen). If, for example, Charles - who famously has much lower public satisfaction ratings - were the King, I imagine monarchy approval ratings would much less clear-cut.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 336
Original post by Burridge
First, let's not over-egg the pudding. Monarchy approval ratings - whilst at an all-time high, admittedly - generally fluctuate between 65-70% depending on the poll and the structure of the question.

Second, and more importantly, people's support for the monarchy often hinges on emotion; for many, it fosters up a sense of patriotism and nostalgia. It's like a big pantomime show - and the general public lap it up; royal weddings, Prince George, what Kate's wearing etc. Frankly, it's quite facile - this is a constitutional issue, people seem to forget that. In addition, I suspect that when people are judging the monarchy, often they're just expressing satisfaction with the reigning monarch at that time (i.e the Queen). If, for example, Charles - who famously has much lower public satisfaction ratings - were the King, I imagine monarchy approval ratings would much less clear-cut.


Firstly, let's not lie about official polls. It's is 75-80%, 80% in the most recent. Would you like the link?

Second. You clearly don't know how Britain works. We do not have a constitution, so how can it be a constitutional issue. You seem to forget that the Queen brings in a huge amount of wealth and diplomatic relations to Britain. They do actually work, they don't just sit around all day. The Queen never stops working. Prince Charles may say some silly things, he has dementia though. Give the man a break. He will never see the crown.
Original post by sw651
Firstly, let's not lie about official polls. It's is 75-80%, 80% in the most recent. Would you like the link?

Second. You clearly don't know how Britain works. We do not have a constitution, so how can it be a constitutional issue. You seem to forget that the Queen brings in a huge amount of wealth and diplomatic relations to Britain. They do actually work, they don't just sit around all day. The Queen never stops working. Prince Charles may say some silly things, he has dementia though. Give the man a break. He will never see the crown.


Just because it isn't codified doesn't mean there isn't a constitution

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 338
Original post by Jammy Duel
Just because it isn't codified doesn't mean there isn't a constitution

Posted from TSR Mobile


Correct, but a constitution HAS to be a written document. Britain has no such document.
Original post by sw651
Correct, but a constitution HAS to be a written document. Britain has no such document.


ummmm, no it doesn't... it can be written across several documents, include unwritten elements, or be completely unwritten, does not mean it does not exist.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending