What does good does the Monarchy really do ? Watch

Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#241
Report 4 years ago
#241
(Original post by Midlander)
It is possible to have a problem with both things.
But you only make a big deal about the one that isn't beneficial to you, I don't see you supporting the idea of removing the NHS, our education system, our water infrastructure etc to drag us down to the level of those worse off than us, well, if I were to guess I would think you're more likely than not the sort of person that would like to sort out our inequality "problems" by dragging the top down rather than pulling the bottom up.
1
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#242
Report 4 years ago
#242
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
But you only make a big deal about the one that isn't beneficial to you, I don't see you supporting the idea of removing the NHS, our education system, our water infrastructure etc to drag us down to the level of those worse off than us, well, if I were to guess I would think you're more likely than not the sort of person that would like to sort out our inequality "problems" by dragging the top down rather than pulling the bottom up.
This is a thread specifically about the monarchy, so of course I'm not talking about other parts of British society that need changing. You won't see me calling for foreign aid to be scrapped though, sorry to disappoint.
0
reply
SBKA
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#243
Report 4 years ago
#243
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
But you only make a big deal about the one that isn't beneficial to you, I don't see you supporting the idea of removing the NHS, our education system, our water infrastructure etc to drag us down to the level of those worse off than us, well, if I were to guess I would think you're more likely than not the sort of person that would like to sort out our inequality "problems" by dragging the top down rather than pulling the bottom up.
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.
0
reply
Chellecharity
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#244
Report 4 years ago
#244
(Original post by Midlander)
Stonehenge is one of the most visited attractions in the UK.
Rocks, much fascination, much culture
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#245
Report 4 years ago
#245
(Original post by SBKA)
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.
Which is not was anybody was claiming.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#246
Report 4 years ago
#246
(Original post by Chellecharity)
Rocks, much fascination, much culture
It even predates the monarchy.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Chellecharity
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#247
Report 4 years ago
#247
(Original post by Midlander)
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
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#248
Report 4 years ago
#248
(Original post by Chellecharity)
I think that Britain got rid of most of its culture with the introduction of the monarchy which is a shame
Except that what most people would be considering major parts of British culture are going to be from the last 500 years or so, the monarchy has been around for over a millenium.
The first king of England was Alfred the Great in the 9th Century, and back when we were still a collection of up to 7 kingdoms it goes back even further, Alfred was formerly King of Wessex, a position dating back to 519AD. Northumbria went even further back, some time around about 500AD, yet further for Sussex, 477AD, Kent is unknown but may go back further, so we have had at least one monarchy here in Britain for over 1500 years, most of the culture from before then was not our own.
0
reply
SBKA
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#249
Report 4 years ago
#249
(Original post by Midlander)
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.
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#250
Report 4 years ago
#250
(Original post by SBKA)
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?
0
reply
SBKA
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#251
Report 4 years ago
#251
(Original post by Midlander)
What false premises would these be?
One of them I have already given. The premise that 'Every child should be born equal' is completely absurd. This therefore renders any arguments that the monarchy should be abolished because 'every child should be equal' as false.

I believe that the monarchy is an economic gain for this country and its tax paying citizens, so therefore I also disagree with the argument that the Royals are just 'posh scroungers'

Finally, the argument that the monarchy is undemocratic I believe is also false. Most polls put popular support for the monarchy at around 70%, therefore making it democratic.
0
reply
Pro Crastination
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#252
Report 4 years ago
#252
(Original post by SBKA)
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.
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.
0
reply
Pro Crastination
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#253
Report 4 years ago
#253
(Original post by SBKA)
One of them I have already given. The premise that 'Every child should be born equal' is completely absurd.
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.
0
reply
SBKA
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#254
Report 4 years ago
#254
(Original post by Pro Crastination)
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?
0
reply
Pro Crastination
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#255
Report 4 years ago
#255
(Original post by SBKA)
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?
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.
0
reply
SBKA
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#256
Report 4 years ago
#256
(Original post by Pro Crastination)
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.
Here are some arguments in favour of the monarchy:

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.

2. It provides an almost 'living history' and acts as an advertisement for Britain's past on the international stage.

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.
0
reply
Pro Crastination
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#257
Report 4 years ago
#257
(Original post by SBKA)
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.
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.

(Original post by SBKA)
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.
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.

(Original post by SBKA)
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.
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.

(Original post by SBKA)
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.
I think we should agree to disagree here. I would get too riled up if we started debating the failings and successes of multiculturalism ^^
0
reply
SBKA
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#258
Report 4 years ago
#258
(Original post by Pro Crastination)
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.
The British Tourism Agency stated that the Royal family brings in £500 million worth through tourism. Also the mass amount of money made through increased consumer spending (Royal memorabilia, etc). The Jubilee report that was conducted by Brand Finance also concluded that the monarchy does provide an economic net benefit to the country.


(Original post by Pro Crastination)
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.
I agree that you do not need a figurehead to maintain these links. I do believe that our friendship with certain nations (especially Australia at the moment) is strengthened by sharing a head of state. I believe that the Commonwealth does do great good, such as in doing it's best to ensure human rights are supported across its territories.

(Original post by Pro Crastination)
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.
What political system would we be pursuing under a Republican government? There is not better form of government for restricting the powers of elite then a constitutional monarchy. The fact that the monarchies powers are limited under entrenched laws that have existed for over 800 years today strengthens this idea.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#259
Report 4 years ago
#259
(Original post by Pro Crastination)
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.
"rule"
You could very nearly get away with saying that, supposing they exist, the UK ambassador to Tajikistan is as much ruler as HRH Queen Elizabeth II
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#260
Report 4 years ago
#260
(Original post by Pro Crastination)
It's meritocratic.
Is it? What about people who inherited their wealth?

And if it's purely about meritocracy - what are you saying - that the voice of the skilled is more important than the voice of the people?

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.
Quite, but that's not what you argued before. And you've only addressed big business. What about other groups? What makes them inherently more rightful in arguing for their own corners, privately and confidentially, but not for the monarchy?

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.
But it is useful and valuable, given their role as constitutional bookkeepers and long-term observers. That's merit of its own.
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

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (127)
18.12%
It's just nice to be back! (192)
27.39%
Not great so far... (251)
35.81%
I want to drop out! (131)
18.69%

Watched Threads

View All