Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Get Rid of Monarchy Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should we get rid of the monarchy?
    Yes
    41.07%
    No
    58.93%

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    she still can.If you don't remember it doesn't mean it can't happen.For example I doubt the queen would name a minister who is against the monarchy
    Except she has, a number times. The most famous example is Tony Benn.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    For the purposes of the debate at hand, I think it's perfectly okay to do so, as Tiger is incapable of grasping that it's alright to have an unelected Head of State. Unfortunately I have to argue at his level.

    Anyway, I challenge your claim that stakeholders aren't consulted in the UK over the monarchy. They are - constantly. Opinion polls take place and Parliament's political parties know that republicanism isn't a vote winner, or potentially a vote loser.
    it's useless to debate with someone who thinks democracy is made with opinion polls.Even people who agree with the monarchy admit it is not completely a democratic system for obvious reasons.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    it's useless to debate with someone who thinks democracy is made with opinion polls.Even people who agree with the monarchy admit it is not completely a democratic system for obvious reasons.
    And it's useless to debate with someone who thinks democracy is only ever elections and believes the Queen actually runs the government. Good grief.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    she still can.If you don't remember it doesn't mean it can't happen.For example I doubt the queen would name a minister who is against the monarchy
    If the ruling party told her to she would have to do it, her own opinions never come into it. Many ministers have been pro-republic, they were still formally appointed by the queen.

    You seem to think that the monarchy has real political power, it doesn't, it is purely ceremonial.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Profitable versus equitable arguments aside, I think that it does not bode well for a nation to be united under someone who wears a crown that is alone worth more than them.

    The monarchy does not need to be abolished, but it definitely needs reshaping. The Queen is very accountable politically, and Her Majesty's royal prerogative is rarely used. But it is this divide between 'she's born into prosperity' and 'she's bringing in money' that needs to stop.

    She should be the People's Queen. That means that we should sell all of this unnecessary heritage of 'Britain' (baring in mind it's mostly German), and just keep the lands in the hands of the National Trust, and the Queen represented as someone who doesn't need jewels, crowns and castles.

    I think the Dutchess of Cambridge is bringing this perspective afloat fantastically. A town girl who worked hard for her success, and portrays herself in the media as a royal who actually cares, and doesn't need a crown or miles of property to do it.

    If we sell all of this 'heritage', there's a lot of money involved both in development and/or tourism, the exact same as you'd get with the Queen. Tourists don't come to see the Queen, it's a high chance they would ever meet her. This also has to change, and something that the Dutchess of Cambridge is striving towards. More opportunities to speak with the public, and at least show that they are willing to cast themselves on the same level as ordinary members of society. The Queen does not do this, nor has she ever.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lampoon)
    If the ruling party told her to she would have to do it, her own opinions never come into it. Many ministers have been pro-republic, they were still formally appointed by the queen.

    You seem to think that the monarchy has real political power, it doesn't, it is purely ceremonial.
    nobody can force the queen.She does it for now but theoretically she could name a different prime minister
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leondrip)
    More opportunities to speak with the public, and at least show that they are willing to cast themselves on the same level as ordinary members of society. The Queen does not do this, nor has she ever.
    A very admirable position, but how on earth do you propose this would be achieved? The Queen would never have the time to speak at length with individual members of the public (nor, indeed, do Prime Ministers or Presidents). And what do you mean by "cast themselves on the same level as ordinary members of society"? By virtue of their roles, it would be impossible for members of the Royal family to act like ordinary people (which, again, can also be said of democratically elected officials).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FrogInABog)
    A very admirable position, but how on earth do you propose this would be achieved? The Queen would never have the time to speak at length with individual members of the public (nor, indeed, do Prime Ministers or Presidents). And what do you mean by "cast themselves on the same level as ordinary members of society"? By virtue of their roles, it would be impossible for members of the Royal family to act like ordinary people (which, again, can also be said of democratically elected officials).
    by disclosing MI6 files about Al Fayed's crash as suggested by Kate
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    nobody can force the queen.She does it for now but theoretically she could name a different prime minister
    If she were to do that then she would be deposed, she could theoretically name a new PM in the same way way that I could theoretically attempt to set fire to someone's house. I could try to do it but the consequences would far outweigh the benefits and the chance of success would be negligible.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lampoon)
    If she were to do that then she would be deposed, she could theoretically name a new PM in the same way way that I could theoretically attempt to set fire to someone's house. I could try to do it but the consequences would far outweigh the benefits and the chance of success would be negligible.
    not if you're the police head as you could probably get away with that
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FrogInABog)
    A very admirable position, but how on earth do you propose this would be achieved? The Queen would never have the time to speak at length with individual members of the public (nor, indeed, do Prime Ministers or Presidents). And what do you mean by "cast themselves on the same level as ordinary members of society"? By virtue of their roles, it would be impossible for members of the Royal family to act like ordinary people (which, again, can also be said of democratically elected officials).
    The reason why people have these perspectives is because the Queen seems far better off than ordinary members of society, and also because she does not 'work' for it. If anyone says she does, traveling is not work.

    I don't have a problem with the nature of what she has to do, and she will never be a 'ordinary' member of society, she does the country great things by visiting other nations. However, why can she not do this without the incredibly expensive clothes and the impressive limos? If she came across (in the media) as less of a disparity with the ordinary, she would be loved so much more, and would be appreciated as a Queen who knows that she's not above others just because of her family status.

    It'd portray Britain as more real, down to earth and democratic (even though by all means, it is a liberal democracy as far as the term is concerned)

    Of course she can't speak to everyone, but more regular announcements would be great, and from public domains. Speaking from the luxury of your palace is NOT going to go down well, and hence why I can see the wish to abolish it! If she was talking from a public area, people would actually see her as a figure that is united with Britain.

    It's not about BEING like us, it is about LIVING like us, and portraying themselves as a family who care less about prestige, and more about the tradition of uniting a country under the same banner.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    not if you're the police head as you could probably get away with that
    This debate has descended into a fantastical conspiracy theory, perhaps you should create another thread for it?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    by disclosing MI6 files about Al Fayed's crash as suggested by Kate
    :facepalm: Won't even bother replying beyond this...

    (Original post by Leondrip)
    The reason why people have these perspectives is because the Queen seems far better off than ordinary members of society, and also because she does not 'work' for it. If anyone says she does, traveling is not work

    I don't have a problem with the nature of what she has to do, and she will never be a 'ordinary' member of society, she does the country great things by visiting other nations. However, why can she not do this without the incredibly expensive clothes and the impressive limos? If she came across (in the media) as less of a disparity with the ordinary, she would be loved so much more, and would be appreciated as a Queen who knows that she's not above others just because of her family status.

    It'd portray Britain as more real, down to earth and democratic (even though by all means, it is a liberal democracy as far as the term is concerned)

    Of course she can't speak to everyone, but more regular announcements would be great, and from public domains. Speaking from the luxury of your palace is NOT going to go down well, and hence why I can see the wish to abolish it! If she was talking from a public area, people would actually see her as a figure that is united with Britain.

    It's not about BEING like us, it is about LIVING like us, and portraying themselves as a family who care less about prestige, and more about the tradition of uniting a country under the same banner.
    You present your case as if there is popular discontent with the monarchy, and that change is therefore necessary, but this simply is not true. The institution enjoys overwhelming support from the British public, rarely polling below 80% support, which is far more than any politician could ever hope for.

    As I said before, one can hardly expect any head of state to "live like us". They have to carry a high level of prestige as part of their roles in society, and it would make no sense to diminish that. I don't think that the Queen's (already high) approval ratings would rise much if she moved in to a terraced house in Luton* and started driving herself around in a battered old 3-door Peugeot. In fact, I imagine it would have quite the opposite effect. Besides, how could she possibly fit all those diplomats and foreign dignitaries around her kitchen table?!

    *DISCLAIMER: I have nothing against Luton, it just sprang to mind!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I found these posts on yahoo, I think they sum this up fully.

    As a constitutional monarch, it is her government. In theory she can: order the dissolution of parliament (in other words force all MPs to break)
    Appoint herself first lord of the treasury (prime minister)
    And ultimately she has the final say on everything.
    However, all these are ifs and if she decided to use any of her powers where not necessary or heavily contested it could cause the government to resign and ultimately the monarchy to be overthrown.
    The does of course have the ultimate power but, she would only use this power if she thought that the very existence of the United Kingdom was at stake.
    The last time the House of Lords blocked a major bill was in 2009 when it blocked the bill about Euthanasia. The House of Lords do block many bills, they are then sent back to the Commons where they are either dropped or amended.
    Personally I like to think of the monarchy as a nice little safety blanket, an ultimate back-up plan if all else fails.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leondrip)
    The reason why people have these perspectives is because the Queen seems far better off than ordinary members of society, and also because she does not 'work' for it. If anyone says she does, traveling is not work.

    I don't have a problem with the nature of what she has to do, and she will never be a 'ordinary' member of society, she does the country great things by visiting other nations. However, why can she not do this without the incredibly expensive clothes and the impressive limos? If she came across (in the media) as less of a disparity with the ordinary, she would be loved so much more, and would be appreciated as a Queen who knows that she's not above others just because of her family status.

    It'd portray Britain as more real, down to earth and democratic (even though by all means, it is a liberal democracy as far as the term is concerned)

    Of course she can't speak to everyone, but more regular announcements would be great, and from public domains. Speaking from the luxury of your palace is NOT going to go down well, and hence why I can see the wish to abolish it! If she was talking from a public area, people would actually see her as a figure that is united with Britain.

    It's not about BEING like us, it is about LIVING like us, and portraying themselves as a family who care less about prestige, and more about the tradition of uniting a country under the same banner.
    I have to politely disagree. The very things you complain about are the very reasons people like the monarchy. It's intended to keep a distance and appear slightly aloof; it's the 'magic' of the monarchy, as it is sometimes called. Once you make it too accessible, the magic fades and enthusiasm dies.

    People are over-saturated with politicians who try to be 'one of the people' by speaking in public areas frequently and about anything they think hits a chord with voters. As a result we have less respect for them than ever.

    People have, in general, no problem with the monarch's perceived splendour; that's one of the points of monarchy - if you're going to have it, damned well do it properly. It costs us no extra to do it this way, either.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Midlander)
    x
    My problem with this argument is that there are many rich people who have had things passed down to them that is arguably unfairly obtained a long time ago, do we have the right to suddenly uproot them too?

    Preposterous idea.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FrogInABog)

    You present your case as if there is popular discontent with the monarchy, and that change is therefore necessary, but this simply is not true. The institution enjoys overwhelming support from the British public, rarely polling below 80% support, which is far more than any politician could ever hope for.

    As I said before, one can hardly expect any head of state to "live like us". They have to carry a high level of prestige as part of their roles in society, and it would make no sense to diminish that. I don't think that the Queen's (already high) approval ratings would rise much if she moved in to a terraced house in Luton* and started driving herself around in a battered old 3-door Peugeot. In fact, I imagine it would have quite the opposite effect. Besides, how could she possibly fit all those diplomats and foreign dignitaries around her kitchen table?!

    *DISCLAIMER: I have nothing against Luton, it just sprang to mind!
    (Original post by gladders)
    I have to politely disagree. The very things you complain about are the very reasons people like the monarchy. It's intended to keep a distance and appear slightly aloof; it's the 'magic' of the monarchy, as it is sometimes called. Once you make it too accessible, the magic fades and enthusiasm dies.

    People are over-saturated with politicians who try to be 'one of the people' by speaking in public areas frequently and about anything they think hits a chord with voters. As a result we have less respect for them than ever.

    People have, in general, no problem with the monarch's perceived splendour; that's one of the points of monarchy - if you're going to have it, damned well do it properly. It costs us no extra to do it this way, either.

    Just to request before I counter-argue:

    - I'd like to see the breakdown of those polls, I think you'll find the turnout is incredibly low.

    I'm mystified how you could even go as far to call it the 'magic' of the monarchy. Definitely from what I've seen here, and even in a common sense perspective, a majority complain about how the Queen lives in luxury, when many people do not have the money for basic care.

    I'm not suggesting that the Queen should live in Luton. I'm suggesting that rather than an entourage, and large ceremonies which cost a large amount of money, she attends meets and greets as normal people do.

    I still agree that she should live in a Palace, as the Queen does need to be 'aloof'. However I find it ridiculous that she rarely ever goes out to greet her public, and rather delivers all of her messages from the rich land.

    A lot of the possessions of the royals aren't even used. A lot of that should be sold off. She should still live SOME luxury, but at this time it's overboard.

    Why are you even comparing the Queen and politicians? They both have completely different characters, and stereotypically politicians are conniving. The Queen wouldn't be issuing policies, she should just occasionally speak to her public and boost some morale.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The burden of proof is on the reformers. Prove to me why people should not exercise power hereditarily. Do it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leondrip)
    Just to request before I counter-argue:

    - I'd like to see the breakdown of those polls, I think you'll find the turnout is incredibly low.
    Plainly. It's called sampling. It would be a bit much to ask IPSOS or YouGov to go around and individually poll every eligible voter every day to see what they think of something.

    (Original post by Leondrip)
    I'm mystified how you could even go as far to call it the 'magic' of the monarchy. Definitely from what I've seen here, and even in a common sense perspective, a majority complain about how the Queen lives in luxury, when many people do not have the money for basic care.

    I'm not suggesting that the Queen should live in Luton. I'm suggesting that rather than an entourage, and large ceremonies which cost a large amount of money, she attends meets and greets as normal people do.

    I still agree that she should live in a Palace, as the Queen does need to be 'aloof'. However I find it ridiculous that she rarely ever goes out to greet her public, and rather delivers all of her messages from the rich land.
    When would you suggest she fits in all this meeting and greeting of the public? The Queen carried out 370 engagements in 2011, plus her usual reading of the red boxes and Prime Ministerial meetings. Which of these would you cut?

    And attending the ceremonies as a 'normal' person is ridiculous. The meals and occassions aren't just a jolly knees up. They're important diplomatic occassions. Inviting the President of India over for some pub grub down the local won't quite make a good impression.

    (Original post by Leondrip)
    A lot of the possessions of the royals aren't even used. A lot of that should be sold off. She should still live SOME luxury, but at this time it's overboard.
    If we sell off her possessions we'd lose the massive profits generated from those estates. Plus we're ignoring that the majority can't be sold off - its our territorial seabed. The only alternative would be forced nationalisation, but that would be theft. So lets not even go there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kbw)
    Plainly. It's called sampling. It would be a bit much to ask IPSOS or YouGov to go around and individually poll every eligible voter every day to see what they think of something.



    When would you suggest she fits in all this meeting and greeting of the public? The Queen carried out 370 engagements in 2011, plus her usual reading of the red boxes and Prime Ministerial meetings. Which of these would you cut?

    And attending the ceremonies as a 'normal' person is ridiculous. The meals and occassions aren't just a jolly knees up. They're important diplomatic occassions. Inviting the President of India over for some pub grub down the local won't quite make a good impression.



    If we sell off her possessions we'd lose the massive profits generated from those estates. Plus we're ignoring that the majority can't be sold off - its our territorial seabed. The only alternative would be forced nationalisation, but that would be theft. So lets not even go there.
    Firstly, I wasn't asking that YouGov follow up every voter, I requested to see data. I don't see how your point is relevant there.

    370 engagements is a little more than one a day. An ask to see the Queen address her public perhaps 2 to 3 more times a year in public domains, shown to be engaging with real people, not politicians, is not at all a large ask. She meets with the PM on a weekly basis, and this is not for a long period of time. She's not on a heavy schedule, Her Majesty can make time.

    Once again, I don't think that the majority of her estates should be sold off, but she has national jewels, art and other goods which are simply not needed. If the public are to see her as a person, and not a matriarch, then this will have to be done.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.