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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Uh, I never denied they get an annuity - I said those annuities were only ever paid when they specifically carried out a public function. They don't get it for doing nothing.
    You do know the definition of an annuity, do you not? Or are you claiming that Prince Philip's annuity has changed from year to year depending on how much work he does, and that it is not in fact a fixed amount?

    The First Lady of the United States also gets ...a salary.
    Actually she doesn't.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phantasmagorical)


    They're profitable and of cultural significance.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    You do know the definition of an annuity, do you not? Or are you claiming that Prince Philip's annuity has changed from year to year depending on how much work he does, and that it is not in fact a fixed amount?
    The Duke of Edinburgh's Annuity is a standing thing, and always gets granted. The other royals got one for carrying out specific duties.

    Actually she doesn't.
    Mea culpa, I thought I had read that she does. But she does get a hefty expenses account.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    Ain't broke, don't fix it. You're obviously not very clued-up on how the monarchy works if you think that the Crown is not accountable to the people, when as an institution it is under the strict control of the people's representatives in Parliament.
    This is true, but it just perpetuates the idea of privelege. It is broke, as broke as it was when we changed from an absolute monarch to a constitutional monarchy, and that was fixed.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    The question remains valid-why is birth a superior method of electing a head of state than a vote?
    You base the method of appointment on what you want the position to do, not the other way round.

    As a ceremonial Head of State is meant to be a living symbol of the country which is prohibited from entering the political arena and challenging Parliament or government for power, or of using their political prejudices to influence and affect the workings of Parliament or government, monarchy suits this job just fine.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Macabre)
    Yes you must. Imagine she hadnt been there? God knows what Tony and his cronies would have done.
    That's a rather odd, confused argument. Besides the fact you've just completely abandoned your argument that participation in the Iraq War is dependent on a democratic head of state, what exactly are you claiming the Queen prevented?

    We have members of the royal family as trade envoys. The title is kind of self explanatory
    Actually there are none. The only royal trade envoy, Prince Andrew, stepped down after a series of corruption and underage sex scandals with which he was peripherally involved. Not to mention the constant gladhanding of despots and the total embarassment he caused to this country.

    Actually you still have to pass the officer training establishments in order to serve as an officer, therefore there is no control, they either pass or fail, therefore theyve earned their rank, not monopolised it
    You seem to be under a great misapprehension, please try to pay attention. The proposition was, why is the royal family's service in the military dependent on the family's monopoly on executive power? Is there any reason they couldn't serve in the same capacity if they weren't the royal family, and if so, how is that then an argument in favour of that family retaining a monopoly on the executive power?

    She seved in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME) though if you wanted to be pedantic you could say shes a mechanic
    She was a mechanic. Yes.

    Considering you have 0 idea of what service in uniform means you should keep your overinflated sense of self worth to yourself.
    Ha, actually I do I served in the Australian army reserve for four years. This makes me superior to you, right?

    Hes presiding over the worse crisis to ever hit the earth and you think thats a model to aspire to?
    You're confusing correlation with causation. I've attached a link for you to read.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla...mply_causation

    Pure democracies have always been filled with corruption, greed and a lust for power. Rome itself was one of the greatest democracies and yet it fell.
    Yup. Clearly France is totally filled with corruption, greed and a lust for power that doesn't exist in the UK.

    I think your an individual with an inferiority complex, who has problems with people who are wealthier, have a higher title or just plain above your station.
    I would have thought inferiority complex rather more handily describes you; someone who has a desperate need for people who don't even know of his existence or care, to like him.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The queen holds no real power in practice on paper she holds all the power. I see nothing wrong with this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Excellent video.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    This is true, but it just perpetuates the idea of privelege. It is broke, as broke as it was when we changed from an absolute monarch to a constitutional monarchy, and that was fixed.
    The idea of privilege is self-perpetuating. It hasn't stopped privilege existing in the US, Germany of France.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Excellent video.
    Flawed video. I've never had explained to me what 'lost yield through inflexibility' means. I suspect it's made up to overegg the pudding.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    That's a rather odd, confused argument. Besides the fact you've just completely abandoned your argument that participation in the Iraq War is dependent on a democratic head of state, what exactly are you claiming the Queen prevented?
    She still has quite the presence in government and did participate in preventing the initial plans to go to Iraq as she couldnt see the reasoning behind it. In the end a commons majority carried the plans forward due to new evidence which turns out now to be falsified by MPs.

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    You seem to be under a great misapprehension, please try to pay attention. The proposition was, why is the royal family's service in the military dependent on the family's monopoly on executive power? Is there any reason they couldn't serve in the same capacity if they weren't the royal family, and if so, how is that then an argument in favour of that family retaining a monopoly on the executive power?
    You make no sense. Their title doesnt entitle them to automatic service and anyone with the right qulifications and passed the selection tests can serve as an officer. Not all members of the family serve. Some do and some dont. Its down to choice, not your obsession with power monopoly

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    She was a mechanic. Yes.?
    So you are being pedantic

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Ha, actually I do I served in the Australian army reserve for four years. This makes me superior to you, right?
    No your inferior. I served with the British armed forces. We actually fight instead of just battering immigrants



    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    You're confusing correlation with causation. I've attached a link for you to read.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla...mply_causation?
    Lol using wikipedia in any evidence based argumant is like getting a note from my mum so i dont have to go to work



    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Yup. Clearly France is totally filled with corruption, greed and a lust for power that doesn't exist in the UK.
    Nah they just have a socialist crackpot who thinks borrowing more money will solve his countries problems. Great win for democracy there


    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    I would have thought inferiority complex rather more handily describes you; someone who has a desperate need for people who don't even know of his existence or care, to like him.
    Says the man who started this post shouting repbulican nonsense?

    And of course earlier we got the nook of the problem. You are Australian? So then i can now see why your so upset about the queen, shes still your head of state

    And yet you, all the way over there on your antisocial island sit on your high horse dictating how british people should live there lives? I think youshould have a sit down and a nice old cup tea and think about what ive said
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sevchenko)
    The queen holds no real power in practice on paper she holds all the power. I see nothing wrong with this.
    Except that the monarchy wields both substantial informal influence based on their historical position and wealth, and a very real influence on policy behind the scenes.

    This was handily demonstrated by the palace's refusal to accept the advice of the Australian state governments, Australian federal government and British government in relation to exercise of the monarchical/viceregal powers in the Australian states in the discussions over the structure of the Australia Act in the 1980s.

    Also, by the Queen's appointment of Alec Douglas-Home as Prime Minister in the 1960s.

    And by her Abu Hamza intervention. And for the royal family as a whole in the Chelsea Barracks matter. And the complete exemption of the Royal Household from Freedom of Information, so that we have no idea what advice has been tendered when the monarch exercises the highly anti-democratic conventional power of refusing "Queen's Consent".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    The idea of privilege is self-perpetuating. It hasn't stopped privilege existing in the US, Germany of France.
    You are obviously confusing privelege with nepotism.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Except that the monarchy wields both substantial informal influence based on their historical position and wealth, and a very real influence on policy behind the scenes.

    This was handily demonstrated by the palace's refusal to accept the advice of the Australian state governments, Australian federal government and British government in relation to exercise of the monarchical/viceregal powers in the Australian states in the discussions over the structure of the Australia Act in the 1980s.
    Eh? What? News to me. Got a link?

    Also, by the Queen's appointment of Alec Douglas-Home as Prime Minister in the 1960s.
    Actually this was foisted on the Queen by the leadership choosing practices of the Conservative Party at the time. She made it abundantly clear to leading Tories afterwards that she never wanted to be put in that position again.

    And by her Abu Hamza intervention.
    Not really. She made her views known to the Home Secretary. That's what she is constitutionally expected to do.

    And for the royal family as a whole in the Chelsea Barracks matter.
    Not really. I think the same outcome would have happened if a private citizen had said they disliked what the plans looked like. And thank god they did!

    And the complete exemption of the Royal Household from Freedom of Information,
    Not complete. Certain parts are exempt for confidence reasons - much like how legal advice to the Government is generally kept confidential unless the Government chooses to release it early: because the monarch is incapable of carrying out their function of offering impartial advice to the Government if she will be judged for every word in public. As the government remains at complete liberty to tell her where to walk, it's quite fair and sensible.

    so that we have no idea what advice has been tendered when the monarch exercises the highly anti-democratic conventional power of refusing "Queen's Consent".
    Again, this has been misunderstood. Queen's consent is only ever used on the advice of ministers.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    You are obviously confusing privelege with nepotism.
    I think nepotism is possibly a subset of privilege, perhaps. But my point still stands.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Macabre)
    She still has quite the presence in government and did participate in preventing the initial plans to go to Iraq as she couldnt see the reasoning behind it
    Do you have a single citation for this completely ahistorical assertion?

    You make no sense. Their title doesnt entitle them to automatic service and anyone with the right qulifications and passed the selection tests can serve as an officer. Not all members of the family serve. Some do and some dont. Its down to choice, not your obsession with power monopoly
    I'm sorry you don't seem capable of understanding the proposition. I invite you to go back and re-read it, but I'm not sure you'd get it even if you did.

    So you are being pedantic
    No, just precise. You claimed she's a qualified engineer. That has a precise meaning. She is not. It's not pedantry to point out when someone is making claims that are simply not true.

    No your inferior. I served with the British armed forces. We actually fight instead of just battering immigrants
    By which you mean to say, I just got stung because I made a very silly assumption, and now I'm going to insult the armed forces of a country that's fought in Afghanistan and Iraq alongside Americans and Brits.

    In fact, I don't know anyone in the forces who has an attitude like that to fellow Anglosphere forces, so I question whether you actually have served.

    By the way, it's "you're", not "your".

    Lol using wikipedia in any evidence based argumant is like getting a note from my mum so i dont have to go to work
    I thought wikipedia might be an easy place to start for you, considering you lack even basic understanding of logic.

    Nah they just have a socialist crackpot who thinks borrowing more money will solve his countries problems. Great win for democracy there
    More shouty nonsense from a xenophobe.

    And of course earlier we got the nook of the problem. You are Australian? So then i can now see why your so upset about the queen, shes still your head of state
    The Queen of Australia is the Head of State of Australia. Also, I'm a dual citizen. Also, Australia's monarchy is actually quite acceptable compared to the regressive and insipid British monarchy.

    Maybe you should travel to Australia sometime. I know it might take you a few years to save up, but well worth the expense.

    And yet you, all the way over there on your antisocial island sit on your high horse dictating how british people should live there lives?
    Err, yeah. I'm a dual British-Australian citizen. And I live in London.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Again, this has been misunderstood. Queen's consent is only ever used on the advice of ministers.
    By which you mean to say, the government and the palace have asserted this is the case, but because the advice is not subject to freedom of information we'll never know.

    Curious that even a monarchist would support the government of the day using the monarch to effect an anti-democratic shutdown of a private members bill. You don't think such things should be, if we are to have a monarchy, entirely separate from the monarch?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Not really. She made her views known to the Home Secretary. That's what she is constitutionally expected to do.
    I've always found that an interesting position that monarchists take.

    "The Queen has no real power, but behind the scenes she actually does exercise influence, but we can't actually tell you about when it does happen"
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    By which you mean to say, the government and the palace have asserted this is the case, but because the advice is not subject to freedom of information we'll never know.
    There are decades of ministers' diaries, journals and papers that indicate the Queen's audiences with her ministers. If any of them felt what she advised them was being forced on them, do you think any of them - especially those less enamoured with monarchy - would hesitate to blow that wide open?

    Curious that even a monarchist would support the government of the day using the monarch to effect an anti-democratic shutdown of a private members bill. You don't think such things should be, if we are to have a monarchy, entirely separate from the monarch?
    Actually, I'm completely comfortable with it. If the House of Commons felt sufficiently strongly that the Bill should have gone through anyway, then it has the power to sack the Government and put a new Government in place which will advise the Queen to permit the Bill to proceed.

    As it happens, PMBs have a miniscule survival rate, so now doubt it would have fallen over eventually anyway.

    I have no opposition to having Queen's Consent abolished, but I object to the deliberate misinterpretation of its function and use.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Do you have a single citation for this completely ahistorical assertion?



    I'm sorry you don't seem capable of understanding the proposition. I invite you to go back and re-read it, but I'm not sure you'd get it even if you did.



    No, just precise. You claimed she's a qualified engineer. That has a precise meaning. She is not. It's not pedantry to point out when someone is making claims that are simply not true.



    By which you mean to say, I just got stung because I made a very silly assumption, and now I'm going to insult the armed forces of a country that's fought in Afghanistan and Iraq alongside Americans and Brits.

    In fact, I don't know anyone in the forces who has an attitude like that to fellow Anglosphere forces, so I question whether you actually have served.



    I thought wikipedia might be an easy place to start for you, considering you lack even basic understanding of logic.



    More shouty nonsense from a xenophobe.



    The Queen of Australia is the Head of State of Australia. Also, I'm a dual citizen. Also, Australia's monarchy is actually quite acceptable compared to the regressive and insipid British monarchy.

    Maybe you should travel to Australia sometime. I know it might take you a few years to save up, but well worth the expense.



    Err, yeah. I'm a dual British-Australian citizen. And I live in London.
    I am not disagreeing with you, but I remember the Gough Whitlam goverment sacking, I was in uproar at the time, I could not believe how my vote could be overturned in such a way.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    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.