Should we abolish the Monarchy? Watch

Poll: Should we abolish the Monarchy?
The results of this poll are hidden until the poll closes.
rkhan57
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#221
Report 3 years ago
#221
(Original post by mechanicsonejune)
Princr Charles isn't the monarch.
Still he is the future monarch, and he is already breaking the rules.
0
reply
mechanicsonejune
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#222
Report 3 years ago
#222
(Original post by Onde)
Why should our head of state be an inherited title?

You aren't a member of the royal family by any chance? Or perhaps you have a feudal loyalty and fear that Elizabeth would lose out if there was a referendum on whether we should have a monarchy and/or a referendum on who should be our monarch? Your stance seems rather irrational.
I respect the political stability and benefits we get from the Queen. Monarchs will never be elected - they must have divine mandate. Would like to tack on that I'm atheistic.

I don't consider liz to be a threat to my life in any way, and is an enourmous part of the cultural history of the country that made me.
0
reply
mechanicsonejune
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#223
Report 3 years ago
#223
(Original post by rkhan57)
Still he is the future monarch, and he is already breaking the rules.
He is not the monarch. End of.
0
reply
rkhan57
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#224
Report 3 years ago
#224
(Original post by mechanicsonejune)
He is not the monarch. End of.
(Original post by Onde)
This makes the situation all the worse. That William also gets the documents, again compounds the problem.
Like Onde said. End of.
0
reply
mechanicsonejune
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#225
Report 3 years ago
#225
(Original post by Onde)
This makes the situation all the worse. That William also gets the documents, again compounds the problem.
Why is it a problem if the Royal Family knows what's going on in the Houses of Parliament? It's their country.
0
reply
mechanicsonejune
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#226
Report 3 years ago
#226
(Original post by Onde)
If the Queen only has a mandate from god, or merely reiterates what her Parliament has already passed, you are quibbling about a role that has no purpose.
Having an unelected monarch as the toppest dog in parliament prevents career politicians trying to become the almighty ruler because they will always have the monarch above them with the capability to dissolve parliament. The monarch provides political stability and acts as a kill switch in case a politician goes full hitler and tries to gain 'emergency powers'.
0
reply
mechanicsonejune
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#227
Report 3 years ago
#227
(Original post by Onde)
The key detail is that it is special access to it that everybody else (barring ministers appointed ostensibly on merit) does not have. It has meant that members of royalty, e.g. Charles have used the special access to documents to push their own agendas, not those of the people.
If you don't like the policies of the Monarch then revolt. Get a new monarch in by force.

Just deal with the status quo. At the end of the day, even Charles' lobbying can't outweigh the democratic process
0
reply
mechanicsonejune
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#228
Report 3 years ago
#228
(Original post by Onde)
I can't revolt, it's illegal according to the Treason Felony Act 1848. I'm breaking the law as it is.
Of course it's treason, but you can't legally dethrone a monarch. William didn't sign any forms in 1066.

https://diogeneseassociates.wordpres...na-carta-1215/
0
reply
mechanicsonejune
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#229
Report 3 years ago
#229
Monarchy is already chosen on merit as it is. Weak monarchs are killed.
0
reply
Hans_301
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#230
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#230
(Original post by PrinceOfOrange)
The Royal Family should've been guillotined decades ago
People may lose their heads over that statement friend.

See what I did there?

Just a bit of pun.
0
reply
Hans_301
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#231
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#231
(Original post by mechanicsonejune)
Monarchy is already chosen on merit as it is. Weak monarchs are killed.
Would you mind naming any weak Monarchs?
0
reply
mechanicsonejune
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#232
Report 3 years ago
#232
(Original post by Hans_301)
Would you mind naming any weak Monarchs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...dered_monarchs
1
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#233
Report 3 years ago
#233
(Original post by rkhan57)
How can you possibly say 80 %? where is your credible source? Like I said no poll is credible enough to rely on.

Okay the money we are spending on the monarchy is okay, but asking what the people want is too expensive.
I'm sorry in what way are the polls not credible?

As for your comments about millions do you know anything about the crown estate? If you did you wouldn't talk such *******s


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
sleepysnooze
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#234
Report 3 years ago
#234
(Original post by mechanicsonejune)
Monarchy is already chosen on merit as it is. Weak monarchs are killed.
:lol: what?!
0
reply
rkhan57
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#235
Report 3 years ago
#235
(Original post by paul514)
I'm sorry in what way are the polls not credible?

As for your comments about millions do you know anything about the crown estate? If you did you wouldn't talk such *******s


Posted from TSR Mobile
source?! Seems like you are the one talking bs, and it is true we do pay them millions?
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#236
Report 3 years ago
#236
(Original post by rkhan57)
source?! Seems like you are the one talking bs, and it is true we do pay them millions?
It's true that they receive millions from the government something like 30 or 40 million per year oooo lots of money!

However they receive that money in return for allowing the government to run and take all the profits from the crown estate which bring in many times more revenue than the government grant to the royals.

You see you shouldn't talk about things you clearly don't know.

As for polls you have google there is numerous ones and I believe one has already been linked on a previous page from you gov. The point is you said you had a problem with polls I asked you what that was.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
rkhan57
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#237
Report 3 years ago
#237
(Original post by paul514)
It's true that they receive millions from the government something like 30 or 40 million per year oooo lots of money!

However they receive that money in return for allowing the government to run and take all the profits from the crown estate which bring in many times more revenue than the government grant to the royals.

You see you shouldn't talk about things you clearly don't know.

As for polls you have google there is numerous ones and I believe one has already been linked on a previous page from you gov. The point is you said you had a problem with polls I asked you what that was.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Okay so you think we should have the monarchy continue because of Monterrey gains?

Money aside, like my main point, as a democratic country - all about listening to its people it is only fair that a referendum take place where ALL British citizens people can vote to decide whether the monarchy continues.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#238
Report 3 years ago
#238
(Original post by rkhan57)
Okay so you think we should have the monarchy continue because of Monterrey gains?

Money aside, like my main point, as a democratic country - all about listening to its people it is only fair that a referendum take place where ALL British citizens people can vote to decide whether the monarchy continues.
Yes that is part of the reason I think it should stay the same.

As for a referendum the polling clearly shows an overwhelming majority of support for the status quo and therefore a referendum is a pointless expense.

As for your point about powers of the head of state, they are ceremonial not actual power as has been demonstrated in the previous hundreds of years of the current regime.

Do you have any other arguments as it isn't debatable that you can win any of the above three points


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
rkhan57
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#239
Report 3 years ago
#239
(Original post by paul514)
Yes that is part of the reason I think it should stay the same.

As for a referendum the polling clearly shows an overwhelming majority of support for the status quo and therefore a referendum is a pointless expense.

As for your point about powers of the head of state, they are ceremonial not actual power as has been demonstrated in the previous hundreds of years of the current regime.

Do you have any other arguments as it isn't debatable that you can win any of the above three points


Posted from TSR Mobile
1.) so are you telling me that the poll can 100% represent everyone? I do not know anyone who has partaken in the poll

2.) no she is the head of the state, and she holds a lot of power for someone who has not been elected

3.) Bye
0
reply
mechanicsonejune
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#240
Report 3 years ago
#240
(Original post by rkhan57)
1.) so are you telling me that the poll can 100% represent everyone? I do not know anyone who has partaken in the poll

2.) no she is the head of the state, and she holds a lot of power for someone who has not been elected

3.) Bye
Representative statistics

Just put up and shut up you seditious little creature
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

what's your favourite season?

Summer (62)
32.8%
Spring (35)
18.52%
Autumn/Fall (46)
24.34%
Winter (36)
19.05%
I love them all equally (10)
5.29%

Watched Threads

View All