Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    Monarch is a full-time job, with a lot of duties and a busy schedule. Your envy is pathetic.
    It is not envy to disagree with people being born in to a position of great power.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    It is not envy to disagree with people being born in to a position of great power.
    Then abolish the entire system and concept of inheritance. Why should someone be born with more wealth, opportunity and influence than another in general?

    Will you be the first to tell your relatives to remove you from their wills?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    So many edgy republicans in this thread. I'm glad you'll always be a minority.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    You honestly think that photo discredits the Queen? Her as a child, pre-Hitler's rise to power, being told to do a salute she probably didn't understand by the King?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Then abolish the entire system and concept of inheritance. Why should someone be born with more wealth, opportunity and influence than another in general?

    Will you be the first to tell your relatives to remove you from their wills?
    Theres a bit of a difference between some money and being born as someone who will become head of state. In anycase I'm not against money being passed down so long as said money doesn't give that person an advantageous position in life.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    You honestly think that photo discredits the Queen? Her as a child, pre-Hitler's rise to power, being told to do a salute she probably didn't understand by the King?
    Not really, the Queens one of the better ones, I'm more against the system of power rather than her personally.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm happy to see that the job of the European Conservative powers of the 19th century hasn't been lost on all of you,
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    So many edgy republicans in this thread. I'm glad you'll always be a minority.
    We'll see what happens when we have King Charles.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think she's hot..


    /CallMeQueeny
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    No one cares.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    Theres a bit of a difference between some money and being born as someone who will become head of state. In anycase I'm not against money being passed down so long as said money doesn't give that person an advantageous position in life.
    It's all part of the same argument though, isn't it? Many people, by virtue of their parents will have more influence, more power, a greater position in society. See the sons of politicians who have been selected for election as MPs or even the child of a celebrity who can open a lot more doors than the average person in society.

    Republicans focus their scorn on the Queen in emphasising their arguments about privilege, unfairness, etc., but in reality she is just a harmless scapegoat when there are much more insidious examples of it going on in society.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Calling a 90 year old grandmother a 'pony ****er' - what a pleasant person you are.

    This is all just slurs and supposition, which is probably why the republican movement remains firmly on the fringes. If you weren't so offensive about a person most British undoubtedly adore and presented substantiated arguments, without the unnecessary offensiveness, then you might get more support.
    My apologise, I will now 'substantiate' my argument.

    When I referred to her doing nothing I meant that she has to sign a piece of paper for something to become law, and sit on a throne once a year to open parliament.

    To substantiate the claim she lives in luxury I invite you to google buckingham palace, windsor castle or anything that the Queen uses or rides in.

    In terms of being more cost efficient the Louvre (the old palace the french monarchy use to live in) brings in much more income than Buckingham palace, and unlike the monarchy its value can actually be measured because people by tickets, whereas people come to England for numerous reasons that don't include the queen, such as parliament, the west end or the London eye.

    This link shows Prince Charles clearly over stepping his confined lines of impartiality - http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/p...harles-letters

    And this link is a link to the seats held in the lords by the Lords spritual - http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/

    The swearing reference was to the thick of it, which I beg you to watch. It's a comedy TV series about our government, you know the thing we elect and have a chance to stand in an election for?

    There you have it. The real reason the republican movement hasn't taken off is because of morons like you that don't actually look into the evidence as well as our ELECTED, I repeat ELECTED MPs having to swear an alligence to her which they have to do to sit in the commons, which discourages many MPs from speaking out such as Dennis Skinner but the even more prominant and relevant figure Jeremy Corbryn - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10481302.html

    The monarchy as an institutional is untenable, and it's impossible to make a rational argument for them. You are just brain washed.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HAnwar)
    No one cares.
    You speak for everyone do you?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    It's all part of the same argument though, isn't it? Many people, by virtue of their parents will have more influence, more power, a greater position in society. See the sons of politicians who have been selected for election as MPs or even the child of a celebrity who can open a lot more doors than the average person in society.

    Republicans focus their scorn on the Queen in emphasising their arguments about privilege, unfairness, etc., but in reality she is just a harmless scapegoat when there are much more insidious examples of it going on in society.
    The system of the monarchy is the most extreme example of it. One minute you're born the next you're the head of state. Of course I disagree with all the others to but they're not worse examples.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    You honestly think that photo discredits the Queen? Her as a child, pre-Hitler's rise to power, being told to do a salute she probably didn't understand by the King?
    Just to let you know, in these photos Hitler had already become Chancellor and was implementing his horrible regime
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    She's done **** all, the monarchy is just for show to keep the idiots happy :rofl:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think she has been a terrible Monarch and can't wait until she dies and Charles III takes the throne.

    She was unsure of her power early on and didn't use it to constrain the government at all. Then used it as she got older for all the wrong reasons, now she is so sure of her position and so loved by the Media Party that she is useless within her role as Monarch. Sooner she dies and Charles takes the throne the better.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Markg125)
    When I referred to her doing nothing I meant that she has to sign a piece of paper for something to become law, and sit on a throne once a year to open parliament.
    Those are not the full extent of her duties and tasks, and you know it. What she does is similar to the work of any ceremonial head of state. Does the President of Germany do 'nothing', even though he performs similar duties to the Queen as a ceremonial head of state?

    To substantiate the claim she lives in luxury I invite you to google buckingham palace, windsor castle or anything that the Queen uses or rides in.
    So everyone should live in exactly the same accommodation for there to be a fair society? The sheikh in central London should live in the council house of someone in Sheffield?

    In terms of being more cost efficient the Louvre (the old palace the french monarchy use to live in) brings in much more income than Buckingham palace, and unlike the monarchy its value can actually be measured because people by tickets, whereas people come to England for numerous reasons that don't include the queen, such as parliament, the west end or the London eye.
    The Louvre is a world-famous museum open to the public all of the time. If we had a president he or she would take up Buckingham Palace as their residence and the same situation would be present.

    The monarchy does attract tourists. Buckingham Palace has a totally unremarkable exterior, but people camp outside of it because of who resides there and to see the changing of the guard.

    If you removed all British culture, do you think people would just come to see the architecture? No, culture and tradition are important parts of what attracts tourists to a country.

    This link shows Prince Charles clearly over stepping his confined lines of impartiality - http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/p...harles-letters
    This has what to do with the Queen? The Guardian thought they were in for a bombshell, but I recall even their own readers laughed at how banal Charles' letters were.

    The swearing reference was to the thick of it, which I beg you to watch. It's a comedy TV series about our government, you know the thing we elect and have a chance to stand in an election for?
    As I said - the republican movement will get nowhere and remain on the fringes if it continues with its offensive approach.

    There you have it. The real reason the republican movement hasn't taken off is because of morons like you that don't actually look into the evidence as well as our ELECTED, I repeat ELECTED MPs having to swear an alligence to her which they have to do to sit in the commons, which discourages many MPs from speaking out such as Dennis Skinner but the even more prominant and relevant figure Jeremy Corbryn - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10481302.html
    I am struggling to see what evidence you have provided in the above that will convince people to turn to republicanism.

    More insults, but against me this time? It devalues your arguments when you have to resort to ad hominems.

    The monarchy as an institutional is untenable, and it's impossible to make a rational argument for them. You are just brain washed.
    More ad hominems.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    The system of the monarchy is the most extreme example of it. One minute you're born the next you're the head of state. Of course I disagree with all the others to but they're not worse examples.
    So you don't think it's worse for someone to be born into real, tangible power, i.e. the son of a politician who is selected for election, than someone being born into an utterly ceremonial role?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Samosa)
    the monarchy is just for show to keep the idiots happy :rofl:
    Like religion?
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?

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.