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 Rhadamanthus)
    It may not last forever, but hardly any political system does. If you think the United States or the European Union or any of the other republican paradises will be here in a thousand years then you're deluded. However, we have to go with what works. Britain does not have a "watered down version of democracy". In fact, our democratic system and constitutional monarchy have survived centuries of revolutionary plotting against it. Some of the freest and most successful countries in the world are constitutional monarchies - Sweden, Japan, Canada, etc. I am not of the opinion that democracy = more freedom, and if a semi-democratic system is more stable and propitious to human freedom than a fully democratic system then I will support the former. And damned be any republicans (who, I shall remind you, are in a minority in this country) who feel insulted.
    Since when did a Democracy mandate for Monarchy, this idea of constitutional Monarchy is a modern idea, so it is a watered down version of democracy. We don't even have a written constitution. If you had read my next post, you would have seen that I granted the fact that republicans are about 20% of the consensus. As the TSR vote was 40% it probably shows a movement towards removal of the monarchy sooner rather than later, as most TSR users are younger. I also think your "Damning" of a large swathe of people in this country is unacceptable, and just shows up your argument, I accept the staus quo, because the vast majority of Brits support it and that is the democratic way, you have the gall to damn 20% of us.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    Since when did a Democracy mandate for Monarchy, this idea of constitutional Monarchy is a modern idea, so it is a watered down version of democracy. We don't even have a written constitution. If you had read my next post, you would have seen that I granted the fact that republicans are about 20% of the consensus. As the TSR vote was 40% it probably shows a movement towards removal of the monarchy sooner rather than later, as most TSR users are younger. I also think your "Damning" of a large swathe of people in this country is unacceptable, and just shows up your argument, I accept the staus quo, because the vast majority of Brits support it and that is the democratic way, you have the gall to damn 20% of us.
    I do not see why we need a written constitution. Until (God forbid) there is some revolution in this country, the monarchy will stay.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    I am a little surprised by the +40% vote for removing the Monarchy, as Republican vote share is always given as about 20%. I suppose this is due to more younger people on TSR, which is a good trend for the Yes vote of the future.
    Younger people and students are generally slightly more left wing than the general populous and thus more republician. This will change a people have life expeirence and realise they should have stuff for nothing. Also more people will vote that are republician and are against the status quo as people feel more passionate against things

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    I fail to see why an elected commoner couldn't do it just as well. Is no non-Windsor fit to rule?
    Elected Commoners- just like Cameron, Clegg or Miliband, eh? Why not have these common, everyday, Eton and Oxbridge educated-millionaire-members of family political dynasties-career politician-commoners as head of state. After all, they're just your everyday man who the average Brit can totally relate to

    I'm also sure that any elected 'commoner' head of state would also be sure, just like our current relatable bunch, to have a Cabinet where 75% of its membership are millionaires and having lots of money and being from a powerful political elite is not just preferred, but pretty much a requirement- makes it a lot easier to make those hard financial decisions that your everyday man will face.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by navarre)
    Elected Commoners- just like Cameron, Clegg or Miliband, eh? Why not have these common, everyday, Eton and Oxbridge educated-millionaire-members of family political dynasties-career politician-commoners as head of state. After all, they're just your everyday man who the average Brit can totally relate to

    I'm also sure that any elected 'commoner' head of state would also be sure, just like our current relatable bunch, to have a Cabinet where 75% of its membership are millionaires and having lots of money and being from a powerful political elite is not just preferred, but pretty much a requirement- makes it a lot easier to make those hard financial decisions that your everyday man will face.
    It is about the election of, rather than position by birth. Whether we are stupid enough to vote for politicians from whatever political persuasion, or family background is a completely different issue. We should be a more discerning electorate. It is not a reason to continue a Monarchy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    The monarchy is an outdated concept that needs abolished, it sends out a signal to the rest of the world that we are fine with un-elected people holding the highest positions of authority in our society. There also used as a way to make people feel guilt tripped into spending money on a party to celebrate the fact that some old ladies been in her job for such a long period of time as it would be unpatriotic and treasonous not do so.

    We need an elected head of state who is directly accountable to the people, rather than leaving the position to the woman who's ancestors were warmongering of doom across these islands. Keeping the Queen encourages the traditionalist thinking that will doom this country like the idea that their was once some glorious empire we should yearn after.

    At a time when people hate benefit scroungers, why do they fawn over the biggest one - Elizabeth Windsor and her extended brood of taxpayer funded kiddy winks. That's before we get onto how bad the royal nepotist culture is for society.
    I think you have to understand that the monarchy plays a significant cultural role in Britain. You can see it in the way that people flocked to the royal wedding. Removing them would be like removing the statue of liberty from America. It's crazy.

    Also I'm not really sure what you mean by saying that it's outdated. Outdated would be if the queen were still in charge of running the country which she isn't. The Prime minister is. The monarchy is mainly a ceremonial position, which I would say is quite modern.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by navarre)
    Elected Commoners- just like Cameron, Clegg or Miliband, eh? Why not have these common, everyday, Eton and Oxbridge educated-millionaire-members of family political dynasties-career politician-commoners as head of state. After all, they're just your everyday man who the average Brit can totally relate to

    I'm also sure that any elected 'commoner' head of state would also be sure, just like our current relatable bunch, to have a Cabinet where 75% of its membership are millionaires and having lots of money and being from a powerful political elite is not just preferred, but pretty much a requirement- makes it a lot easier to make those hard financial decisions that your everyday man will face.
    I'm almost certain that the likes of Ed Miliband, whilst not your average voter by any stretch, has more in common with one than Elizabeth Windsor. Is that not a fair comment to make?

    The elected HoS wouldn't need to have a 'Cabinet' and wouldn't have to be drawn from the political elite to stand a chance. A cap on campaign spending could be put in place and funding put in place for candidates with enough backing to run when they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford it.

    Is Joe Bloggs not fit to be leader of the country because his surname isn't Windsor? Honest answer please.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    I'm almost certain that the likes of Ed Miliband, whilst not your average voter by any stretch, has more in common with one than Elizabeth Windsor. Is that not a fair comment to make?

    The elected HoS wouldn't need to have a 'Cabinet' and wouldn't have to be drawn from the political elite to stand a chance. A cap on campaign spending could be put in place and funding put in place for candidates with enough backing to run when they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford it.

    Is Joe Bloggs not fit to be leader of the country because his surname isn't Windsor? Honest answer please.
    Even if he does have slightly more in common with the average voter, he is the man who has the power to make important decisions affecting the average voter. The Queen does not. It therefore follows that he should be in touch with the average Brit; but he isn't. The Queen doesn't have to be a 'commoner' because she is not the one making the big decisions that affect the average man. Can you not see the difference?

    Is there any republic in the world where your proposal is true? Or is it just a wild dream you have that will no doubt be ignored if the transition to republic ever happens?

    Joe Bloggs is perfectly fit to be leader of this country- heck, our current leaders don't have the name Windsor, so it obviously isn't a necessity. Rather, being filthy, stinking rich, out of touch with the common voter and educated at Eton/Oxbridge is a necessity for being leader of the country, and I don't think it matters much if your surname is 'Cameron', 'Clegg' or 'Miliband'- no discrimination there.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddlesnap)
    This (from a reputable source) clearly states how many American tourists come to Britain. They account for 9% of visitors, and 13% of all money spent here.

    http://www.visitbritain.org/insights...dtourismfacts/

    While the abolition of the monarchy would not reduce this to zero, I find it very difficult to believe that so much would be spent if it was to happen. Such articles prove the American fascination with the monarchy:

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/90...itish-monarchy

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereport...oyal_envy.html

    http://constitutionclub.org/2011/04/...tish-monarchy/

    I do not profess this to be concrete proof that the Americans would stop visiting if the monarchy was abolished, because it isn't. The only way I could prove that is if the monarchy actually was abolished and tourist numbers were recorded.
    However, common sense and reading the articles will tell you that the Americans are obsessed. I am unsure whether the numbers of Americans touring the royal palaces is recorded and made public, but if you still wish to remain obstinate then I will be more than happy to submit a freedom of information request to prove my point.
    Of course, much of this is pure speculation, I don't actually know for sure what would happen to tourist numbers if the monarchy was to be abolished, and neither do you. I can, however, make an educated guess based on factual knowledge and consideration of the facts and figures. 2.1 million of them visited in 2010. I do not believe that number would have been as high if we didn't have a monarchy - no palace tours, no queen, nothing. And interest in Britain would be not nearly as high if the royals did not exist - you only had to watch them when the Royal Wedding was on, and now with the announcement of the Royal baby they're infatuated.

    Your turn.

    The fact that the royal family generates massive tourism is a myth. If we were a republic tomorrow, people would still visit Buckingham Palace just like I would visit the old Palaces of the Tsars of Russia.

    Visit Britain asked 10,000 people from abroad what they'd visit in Britain. The one that came on top were the Welsh Castles.... and I hate to say it to you- there is no Welsh royal family! (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ja...p-tourist-poll)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UnderPost)
    The fact that the royal family generates massive tourism is a myth. If we were a republic tomorrow, people would still visit Buckingham Palace just like I would visit the old Palaces of the Tsars of Russia.

    Visit Britain asked 10,000 people from abroad what they'd visit in Britain. The one that came on top were the Welsh Castles.... and I hate to say it to you- there is no Welsh royal family! (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ja...p-tourist-poll)
    I note there is no monarchist rebuttle to this or the Visit England figures cited earlier.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    I note there is no monarchist rebuttle to this or the Visit England figures cited earlier.
    Because we all dont beleive that welsh castles are the most popular and that non of your agruments invalidiate a moncarhy.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astrojg)
    Because we all dont beleive that welsh castles are the most popular and that non of your agruments invalidiate a moncarhy.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Despite statistics from foreigners and official tourism figures lie do they? Tourism is one of the most commonly repeated arguments in favour of monarchy and the statistics quite clearly show it to be a fallacy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is the most visited attractions list. http://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=423 . I do not note any welsh castles in the top 20 but numerous attractions with royal connections.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    So no residences where the monarchy is currently based then. Thought so.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    So no residences where the monarchy is currently based then. Thought so.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Well since as Buckingham palace is open one month a year I don't think it has much chance
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    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

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