Should we scrap the monarchy? Watch

Poll: Should the monarchy be abolished once The Queen dies?
Of course. I'm a diehard republican. (131)
41.07%
No - they are doing no harm. (151)
47.34%
I'm undecided. (22)
6.9%
What? (15)
4.7%
United1892
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#21
Report 3 years ago
#21
(Original post by Gilo98)
I think we should remove all political standings of the monarchy. let them be because yes, they bring in tourism etc but I think the power the queen has (granted in theory but still) makes a mockery of the democratic society we live in.
They don't bring in tourism their buildings bring in the tourism and would do without them being royals.
0
quote
reply
Gilo98
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#22
Report 3 years ago
#22
(Original post by United1892)
They don't bring in tourism their buildings bring in the tourism and would do without them being royals.
But the royal wedding and babies have done
0
quote
reply
tomfailinghelp
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#23
Report 3 years ago
#23
Of course not. England has developed as a constitutional monarchy, and we have inherited our liberty as subjects of the queen - not as citizens, which we never have been, and should not desire to be, since all the things we have an value have developed out of a system which contradicts Republicanism.

In any case, there is no reason why, when there is no significant injustice or failure at work, we should take the radical step of coring our political system. In the first place, we do not know the full extent of the role that the monarchy currently plays in our political system, and just because the Queen is not particularly active does not suggest that she is not a lynchpin holding the system together: "When ancient opinions and rules of life are taken away, the loss cannot possibly be estimated". And in the second, governments are never both simple and successful for a reason, which is that life is not simple. Therefore, the complexities of our current government, which involves a monarch to oversee the operations of parliament, and which has developed in relation to the particular complexities of Britain as a political unit, should not be arbitrarily dismissed for the sake of righteous disrespect for inheritance and tradition.

Moreover, people like and support the monarchy. “The people of England… look upon the legal hereditary succession of their crown as among their rights not as among their wrongs; as a benefit, not as a grievance; as a security for their liberty, not as a badge of servitude" - said Burke, which is still true today. Why try to change that? Why are Republicans so insistent that the Monarchy should be seen as oppressive, when in fact it is one of the principal things which has made us free, and British people as a whole have always recognised that?
Last edited by tomfailinghelp; 3 years ago
2
quote
reply
Illiberal Liberal
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#24
Report 3 years ago
#24
"God save the Queen"

As a Republican atheist, I struggle to relate...
2
quote
reply
gladders
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#25
Report 3 years ago
#25
(Original post by United1892)
At least all the Scots can enthusiastically sing about winning a war against the English there are many who struggle to sing their own anthem in England.
That's because they define a lot of themselves by their rivalry with England. I've yet to hear of an alternative song that people know the words of

But as I said, this isn't something I'd going to die in a ditch over. I like God Save the Queen, but if people want it changed they can do so. The monarchy will endure.

The idea that anybody is born superior and into power is fundamentucally undemocratic. However your argument is fair argument as to why it would be undemocratic to abolish them.
I don't see it that way. I see it as having a non-politician permanently at the top denying the elected ministers the ability to abuse powers willy-nilly and telling them what they don't want to hear. The idea of superior birth may have been the origin of the monarchy's right to exist but it's not one held today. Now it's one of duty to serve the people not to lord it over them. In a way, it's a thoroughly republican concept.

it's important to remember the buildings and history bring the tourists not the current family.
I can say with considerable certainty that Buckingham Palace without the Queen would be entirely ignored by passers-by. It's a boring building.
0
quote
reply
DarkSenrine
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#26
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#26
(Original post by United1892)
They don't bring in tourism their buildings bring in the tourism and would do without them being royals.
It does make a difference. You would have to be mad not to see that.

The question is, does the tourism revenue completely offset the cost to the taxpayer?
Last edited by DarkSenrine; 3 years ago
1
quote
reply
United1892
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#27
Report 3 years ago
#27
(Original post by Gilo98)
But the royal wedding and babies have done
The royal wedding didnt benefit us hugely due to the extra bank holiday. In any case one-off events aren't stable contributions to the economy.
0
quote
reply
United1892
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#28
Report 3 years ago
#28
(Original post by DarkSenrine)
It does make a difference. You would have to be mad not to see that.

The question is, does the tourism revenue coming conpletely offset the cost to the taxpayer?
No it dosent. It would potentially if the houses weren't shut to the public when they were in them but they are and effectd the viability,

Definetly not.
0
quote
reply
DarkSenrine
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#29
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#29
(Original post by tomfailinghelp)
Of course not. England has developed as a constitutional monarchy, and we have inherited our liberty as subjects of the queen - not as citizens, which we never have been, and should not desire to be, since all the things we have an value have developed out of a system which contradicts Republicanism.

In any case, there is no reason why, when there is no significant injustice or failure at work, we should take the radical step of coring our political system. In the first place, we do not know the full extent of the role that the monarchy currently plays in our political system, and just because the Queen is not particularly active does not suggest that she is not a lynchpin holding the system together: "When ancient opinions and rules of life are taken away, the loss cannot possibly be estimated". And in the second, governments are never both simple and successful for a reason, which is that life is not simple. Therefore, the complexities of our current government, which involves a monarch to oversee the operations of parliament, and which has developed in relation to the particular complexities of Britain as a political unit, should not be arbitrarily dismissed for the sake of righteous disrespect for inheritance and tradition.

Moreover, people like and support the monarchy. “The people of England… look upon the legal hereditary succession of their crown as among their rights not as among their wrongs; as a benefit, not as a grievance; as a security for their liberty, not as a badge of servitude" - said Burke, which is still true today. Why try to change that? Why are Republicans so insistent that the Monarchy should be seen as oppressive, when in fact it is one of the principal things which has made us free, and British people as a whole have always recognised that?
What on Earth are you talking about?
1
quote
reply
Gilo98
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#30
Report 3 years ago
#30
(Original post by United1892)
The royal wedding didnt benefit us hugely due to the extra bank holiday. In any case one-off events aren't stable contributions to the economy.
would rather keep them in case we can get another bank holiday tbh
0
quote
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#31
Report 3 years ago
#31
:crown: God save the Queen :crown:
1
quote
reply
United1892
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#32
Report 3 years ago
#32
(Original post by gladders)
That's because they define a lot of themselves by their rivalry with England. I've yet to hear of an alternative song that people know the words of

But as I said, this isn't something I'd going to die in a ditch over. I like God Save the Queen, but if people want it changed they can do so. The monarchy will endure.
Jerusalem



I don't see it that way. I see it as having a non-politician permanently at the top denying the elected ministers the ability to abuse powers willy-nilly and telling them what they don't want to hear. The idea of superior birth may have been the origin of the monarchy's right to exist but it's not one held today. Now it's one of duty to serve the people not to lord it over them. In a way, it's a thoroughly republican concept.
Or they may act like Prince Charles and use their position to protect their own interests. They are born into millions of pounds knowing one day they will be head of state and not have to pay any tax. Thats normal :rolleyes:



I can say with considerable certainty that Buckingham Palace without the Queen would be entirely ignored by passers-by. It's a boring building.
It wouldnt just look at the royal palaces in France etc.
0
quote
reply
United1892
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#33
Report 3 years ago
#33
(Original post by Gilo98)
would rather keep them in case we can get another bank holiday tbh
Best argument i've heard.
0
quote
reply
Illiberal Liberal
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#34
Report 3 years ago
#34
(Original post by scrotgrot)
:crown: God save the Queen :crown:


gonna need more than god to save your precious monarchy once QEII passes away
0
quote
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#35
Report 3 years ago
#35
(Original post by gladders)
That's because they define a lot of themselves by their rivalry with England. I've yet to hear of an alternative song that people know the words of

But as I said, this isn't something I'd going to die in a ditch over. I like God Save the Queen, but if people want it changed they can do so. The monarchy will endure.
George V preferred Jerusalem to GSTK
0
quote
reply
Gilo98
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#36
Report 3 years ago
#36
(Original post by United1892)
Best argument i've heard.
:rofl: every cloud
0
quote
reply
Xotol
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#37
Report 3 years ago
#37
(Original post by Gilo98)
But the royal wedding and babies have done
Well then they better breed like mice if they want a good reason to stay on. Kate needs to pop one out every year or two, until her children are old enough to get married off. Lather, rinse, repeat.
0
quote
reply
flamboy
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#38
Report 3 years ago
#38
(Original post by Law-Hopeful)


gonna need more than god to save your precious monarchy once QEII passes away
that's a good point
who even wants this clown as head of state? just look at him
Last edited by flamboy; 3 years ago
2
quote
reply
Gilo98
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#39
Report 3 years ago
#39
(Original post by Xotol)
Well then they better breed like mice if they want a good reason to stay on. Kate needs to pop one out every year or two, until her children are old enough to get married off. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I cant :rofl:

We need to get em breeding like rabbits.
0
quote
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#40
Report 3 years ago
#40
(Original post by Law-Hopeful)


gonna need more than god to save your precious monarchy once QEII passes away
The Almighty has bestowed upon Her Majesty the gift of eternal life
0
quote
reply
X

Reply to thread

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
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

Who is most responsible for your success at university

Mostly me (583)
91.24%
Mostly my university including my lecturers/tutors (56)
8.76%

Watched Threads

View All