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

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    Better an elected politician, than actual nobodies made into somebodies by virtue of birth and marriage. Even with or without the cost, the Head of State should be elected. The Union is a democracy - so what business do we have with a hereditary bloodline and hereditary "office"?
    There is no democratic imperative to elect a ceremonial Head of State. If the people wish to have an inherited Head of State, that is perfectly democratic.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    They are not funded by the general populace. The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh are the only recipients of state money, and that is expressly only for the purpose of the functioning of the office of Head of State - those costs would remain under a republic.

    They are personally wealthy because they have private investment portfolios which finances their personal lifestyles. No tax money goes into that.
    No, they are afforded land (which translates into riches and investment along the line) by virtue of Royalty.

    For generations, these scroungers have been. But it is now 2013 - the Union is a democracy. If we're going to have a Head of State, he/she should be elected. What business do we have with an unelected and hereditary office?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    There is no democratic imperative to elect a ceremonial Head of State. If the people wish to have an inherited Head of State, that is perfectly democratic.
    The people are fooled into thinking that the Royal Family are "harmless" - but they're not. For all we know (which is probably highly correct), such a family could be scoffing at how the dumb populace worship them and could be laughing at how privileged and wealthy they are by virtue of this hereditary office.

    The Union is a democracy. So, why do we have an unelected office like the Dear Leader of North Korea?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    The majority of the public do support them, so you could say it's democratic in a kind of messed up way. If the majority of the public started hating the Queen, I highly doubt she would resist their will.

    I'm not massively fond of them, but then again I wouldn't say they negatively impact me in any way, at least not to my knowledge.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    No, they are afforded land (which translates into riches and investment along the line) by virtue of Royalty.
    They are afforded land as private individuals. The Duchy of Lancaster is the Queen's as Duke of Lancaster. The Crown Lands are held by the Crown, and so the profits from that go direct to the Treasury. The Privy Purse handles the lands that are their private property.

    If you want to rob them of their private property, give it a shot. You'll be trampling over the property rights of everybody in the country. Hardly an auspicious start to your republic.

    For generations, these scroungers have been. But it is now 2013 - the Union is a democracy. If we're going to have a Head of State, he/she should be elected. What business do we have with an unelected and hereditary office?
    I've already answered. There is no democratic imperative to elect a ceremonial Head of State, and it is sufficient that the people are content that the Head of State be a hereditary monarch.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    Everyone always says "they're harmless" and just sweeps it under the carpet - that's what you've been fooled into thinking by good PR. The fact is, there are millionaire and billionaires (seriously, billionaires! e.g. the Duke of Westminster) by virtue of funding from successive generations of the general populace. An insult to the people, I say!

    Patriotic? To what? England or Britain or the United Kingdom? Do the proud Scots beam with pride at the Queen? The Irishmen?
    I am half Irish, so is my boyfriend, we support this patriotism. Don't make sweeping statements about what people do or don't think based on nationality. There's a whole load of Ulster men out there that support the United Kingdom over Ireland. Just like there's a sector of Scots.

    It seems that everytime we get patriotic there's always someone there to tell us it's wrong, or newspapers to tear us down. It's not like that anywhere else in the world, and I know this from a lot of experience. And about the monarchy, the vast majority speak out for and give a lot to charities. If that's your point, are you against any sort of aristocracy or wealthy people? Those who gain it through industry have usually ripped off the average person on the street too.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    The people are fooled into thinking that the Royal Family are "harmless" - but they're not. For all we know (which is probably highly correct), such a family could be scoffing at how the dumb populace worship them and could be laughing at how privileged and wealthy they are by virtue of this hereditary office.
    Oh, how convenient. The people are 'fooled' into thinking this way - and somehow, you are immune. What a conspiracy theory.

    It's rather self-centred to presume you've seen 'the light' and nobody else has. The press in this country are quite free and give the royal family plenty of grilling. We even have an outwardly republican newspaper (the Guardian) - so don't claim the people have no opportunity to read about alternatives to the monarchy. It makes you look silly.

    The Union is a democracy. So, why do we have an unelected office like the Dear Leader of North Korea?
    You tell me - why do Germany and Italy?
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Study Helper
    (Original post by phantasmagorical)
    They're profitable and of cultural significance.

    Whilst that's a nice video, removal of the royal family would normally involve seizure of the lands they profit from anyway, making the argument fairly pointless.


    The simple truth is, the royal family can't be removed. There are massively pressing issues compared to this right now, and whilst if I could click my fingers I'd change things there's just no way it can be done without breaking everything our country runs on, and ruining any chance of rights or democracy.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    At the risk of being negged I'll stick on the side of the OP here. Addressing several commonly touted monarchist arguments in favour of the Royals:

    1. 'They bring in lots of money through tourism, nobody would come to Britain if we didn't have them'

    Look up the Visit England official tourist figures for 2011. See if you can find a royal residence in the top 20 for England-you won't. Then look in the same list for London; one solitary royal building makes it in at number 13. People have also claimed that nobody visits republics such as France and Germany because they have no Royals-that is insulting to the rich culture and history both countries have to offer. Does anybody visit the Netherlands because of their royal household? Didn't think so. It's insulting, and actually incorrect, to assume that a Britain without Windsors isn't worth visiting; the numbers support this.

    2. 'It's a part of our heritage so we shouldn't get rid of it'

    One thing that the Queen is very passionate about is the Commonwealth; something set up to include every country which at one time or another was put as part of the British Empire. Who here is proud of our imperial past and oppressing millions? Not many, but the Empire is largely to thank for the high standard of living we enjoy today. Just because something is traditional does not mean it should be retained solely on that basis.

    3. 'The Royals only cost money for public engagements, the rest they fund through their own wealth'

    Yes this is by and large true, but consider that their land was mainly acquired through Edward III kicking commoners off their own land and soon you realise this sets the Royals apart from other wealthy families. More to the point, the true costs of funding royal engagements is hidden by the FoI act which they are exempt from-the oft quoted figure of £40m ignores the enormous cost of security both domestically and abroad, amongst other things. Could this money not be better spent on public services? True, it isn't cheap to fund any head of state, but look across the board at our European counterparts and you will find that few come close to matching the Queen.

    4. 'They don't have any real power, so what's the problem?'

    In actual fact, they do. The Queen and Prince of Wales have the right to block any act of Parliament which interferes with their personal interests; it might never be acted upon, but why should this right exist on the basis of birth? The Queen is also Head of the Armed Forces, and, for the religious among us, the Church of England. What gives someone the right to control so much because their surname is Windsor? It assumes that no non-Windsor is fit to rule, and that the non-Windsors are unfit to elect a leader of their own. Is nobody insulted by this?

    5. 'How would things change in day to day life without the monarchy?'

    A fair question. Each British citizen would be born knowing that they could one day become the ultimate leader of the country, as chosen by their fellow citizens. This is something republicans envy heavily in other republics-here, that right is forever barred from us because of our blood lineage. At a time when many people are struggling to make ends meet, and many others are being called scroungers simply for being unemployed, the Royals live in immense luxury and privilege because of their ancestry. That should anger anyone in the former situation and an accountable, elected head of state, who could easily have his expenses curbed, would lead a far better example to his or her citizens.

    In summary, using accident of birth as the sole means of electing a leader is obsolete and unjust. The economic advantages are spurious and that the Royals fund themselves through land obtained through out and out theft in the 14th century doesn't justify the situation. It is a life of luxury and privilege obtained through no means other than birth and if we were talking about a snooty peer in the Lords, I suspect peoples' views would be different. For some reason, if your surname is Windsor it all becomes acceptable.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    No, we should not get rid of them. I firmly believe in democracy, and poll after poll has put a majority (sometimes overwhelming majority) of the British people in favour of keeping the monarchy. Besides, what's the alternative? Become another boring republic with another career politician in the role? Do not want.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    They are afforded land as private individuals. The Duchy of Lancaster is the Queen's as Duke of Lancaster. The Crown Lands are held by the Crown, and so the profits from that go direct to the Treasury. The Privy Purse handles the lands that are their private property.

    If you want to rob them of their private property, give it a shot. You'll be trampling over the property rights of everybody in the country. Hardly an auspicious start to your republic.



    I've already answered. There is no democratic imperative to elect a ceremonial Head of State, and it is sufficient that the people are content that the Head of State be a hereditary monarch.
    The duchies were obtained when Edward III evicted commoners off their own land because he fancied them for himself.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    The duchies were obtained when Edward III evicted commoners off their own land because he fancied them for himself.
    Where did the commoners get the land from?
    I'm also pretty sure that's not how duchies work.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Where did the commoners get the land from?
    It was up for grabs as nobody was living there previously. Claiming unoccupied land is entirely different to evicting people and making them homeless to acquire it, I'm sure you'll agree.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Molly_xox)
    I am half Irish, so is my boyfriend, we support this patriotism. Don't make sweeping statements about what people do or don't think based on nationality. There's a whole load of Ulster men out there that support the United Kingdom over Ireland. Just like there's a sector of Scots.

    It seems that everytime we get patriotic there's always someone there to tell us it's wrong, or newspapers to tear us down. It's not like that anywhere else in the world, and I know this from a lot of experience. And about the monarchy, the vast majority speak out for and give a lot to charities. If that's your point, are you against any sort of aristocracy or wealthy people? Those who gain it through industry have usually ripped off the average person on the street too.
    How is it patriotic to support a hereditary bloodline of power and unelected office? What it is, is actually worshipping a family of nobodies and making them into somebodies and they then get the chance to look down on you condescendingly by virtue of their birth. I'm not against aristocracy or wealth in general (my parent's family is wealthy by virtue of generations of self-reliance), but Royalty is ridiculous in these times and it certainly isn't patriotic to support the Queen of England - of England!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    At the risk of being negged I'll stick on the side of the OP here. Addressing several commonly touted monarchist arguments in favour of the Royals:

    1. 'They bring in lots of money through tourism, nobody would come to Britain if we didn't have them'

    Look up the Visit England official tourist figures for 2011. See if you can find a royal residence in the top 20 for England-you won't. Then look in the same list for London; one solitary royal building makes it in at number 13. People have also claimed that nobody visits republics such as France and Germany because they have no Royals-that is insulting to the rich culture and history both countries have to offer. Does anybody visit the Netherlands because of their royal household? Didn't think so. It's insulting, and actually incorrect, to assume that a Britain without Windsors isn't worth visiting; the numbers support this.
    I don't find the tourism argument convincing either way, but there are bound to be some people - even if a handful - who will be more persuaded to visit the UK over seeing royal history and the royals at present. Definitely more than someone who would go 'hey, let's visit the UK, it's a republic!'

    2. 'It's a part of our heritage so we shouldn't get rid of it'

    One thing that the Queen is very passionate about is the Commonwealth; something set up to include every country which at one time or another was put as part of the British Empire. Who here is proud of our imperial past and oppressing millions? Not many, but the Empire is largely to thank for the high standard of living we enjoy today. Just because something is traditional does not mean it should be retained solely on that basis.
    No, but if there's no reason to get rid of it (and there aren't, really), then the corresponding holds: just because something is traditional does not mean it should be remove solely on that basis.

    3. 'The Royals only cost money for public engagements, the rest they fund through their own wealth'

    Yes this is by and large true, but consider that their land was mainly acquired through Edward III kicking commoners off their own land and soon you realise this sets the Royals apart from other wealthy families. More to the point, the true costs of funding royal engagements is hidden by the FoI act which they are exempt from-the oft quoted figure of £40m ignores the enormous cost of security both domestically and abroad, amongst other things. Could this money not be better spent on public services? True, it isn't cheap to fund any head of state, but look across the board at our European counterparts and you will find that few come close to matching the Queen.
    But as you say, Britain has become wealthy through the Empire; if we're to be consistent, while we dismantle the monarchy we should hand off our wealth and infrastructure to those countries who essentially paid for it. We don't do this because it would be complicated, massively damaging to the UK, but above all, because the statute of limitations means we don't have to.

    4. 'They don't have any real power, so what's the problem?'

    In actual fact, they do. The Queen and Prince of Wales have the right to block any act of Parliament which interferes with their personal interests; it might never be acted upon, but why should this right exist on the basis of birth? The Queen is also Head of the Armed Forces, and, for the religious among us, the Church of England. What gives someone the right to control so much because their surname is Windsor? It assumes that no non-Windsor is fit to rule, and that the non-Windsors are unfit to elect a leader of their own. Is nobody insulted by this?
    No.

    The Prince and Queen vetoes are only ever exercised on the advice of the government of the day, and are in turn held accountable for that to Parliament. The government wouldn't use it to block a genuinely popular measure as they would be thrown out on their ear; a new government would advise the Queen or Prince differently. In short, it's become a perfectly democratic mechanism, akin to the Presidential veto in the US, but hardly ever used.

    I am perfectly okay with the Queen being C-in-C of the Armed Forces and all such soldiers thereof swearing allegiance to Her. It's akin to swearing allegiance to the flag - a neutral symbol. Far better than allegiance to a particular government.

    The Church of England matter is probably better in a different thread, but speaking as an atheist it really does not bother me.

    5. 'How would things change in day to day life without the monarchy?'

    A fair question. Each British citizen would be born knowing that they could one day become the ultimate leader of the country, as chosen by their fellow citizens. This is something republicans envy heavily in other republics-here, that right is forever barred from us because of our blood lineage. At a time when many people are struggling to make ends meet, and many others are being called scroungers simply for being unemployed, the Royals live in immense luxury and privilege because of their ancestry. That should anger anyone in the former situation and an accountable, elected head of state, who could easily have his expenses curbed, would lead a far better example to his or her citizens.
    I think most people would argue they'd much rather the present system than a politician. The fact is, it's simply not true that being a republic means 'anyone can be anything'. In fact, you have to be rich, or a politician, or both. And we know what people think of politicians.

    In summary, using accident of birth as the sole means of electing a leader is obsolete and unjust. The economic advantages are spurious and that the Royals fund themselves through land obtained through out and out theft in the 14th century doesn't justify the situation. It is a life of luxury and privilege obtained through no means other than birth and if we were talking about a snooty peer in the Lords, I suspect peoples' views would be different. For some reason, if your surname is Windsor it all becomes acceptable.
    Actually, I'm a fan of the House of Lords as well
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by navarre)
    No, we should not get rid of them. I firmly believe in democracy, and poll after poll has put a majority (sometimes overwhelming majority) of the British people in favour of keeping the monarchy. Besides, what's the alternative? Become another boring republic with another career politician in the role? Do not want.
    Better an elected official, than this circus of "Wills and Kate" and all of that crap - as if they're actually important or meaningful. Their like certainly didn't build the country - they sure as hell enabled the invasions of many continents and the deaths and oppressions of millions of innocent people.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    It was up for grabs as nobody was living there previously.
    Completely dubious claim, considering the amount of social revolutions and invasions that have taken place in the British Isles.

    (Original post by Midlander)
    Claiming unoccupied land is entirely different to evicting people and making them homeless to acquire it, I'm sure you'll agree.
    That's not how duchies work, they aren't enclosed private estates. No one would have been evicted because their rent would have been the primary source of income.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Completely dubious claim, considering the amount of social revolutions and invasions that have taken place in the British Isles.

    That's not how duchies work, they aren't enclosed private estates. No one would have been evicted because their rent would have been the primary source of income.
    My general point is that the people living there originally would not have chucked their predecessors off the land or charged them a sum to keep living there. Neither is defensible but that is precisely what the monarch of the time did, and commoners have been charged for visiting ever since.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    Better an elected official, than this circus of "Wills and Kate" and all of that crap - as if they're actually important or meaningful. Their like certainly didn't build the country - they sure as hell enabled the invasions of many continents and the deaths and oppressions of millions of innocent people.
    Sooo... you think that having an elected official would stop the tabloid media going on about them? You have no evidence for this- Michelle Obama is scrutinized very heavily even to the dress she wears, and her husband is an elected official. Same with Carla Bruni in France, and heck, anybody glamourous and in the spotlight.

    As for Wills and Kate invading many continents and oppressing and killing millions of innocent people- are you serious? Actually, why stop at one outwardly stupid and blatantly false statement? Why not claim that they've invaded planets and killed TRILLIONS of people while you're at it?

    If you expect me to take you seriously, then please bring facts into your arguments. Silly comments and blanket statements don't impress me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Last time I checked the countries that went down the everyone is equal, power to the poor worker route have giant mauseoleums in their capital cities for their leaders and thousands of mass unmarked graves with the millions who died in those regimes. And look what a state we're in compared, poor us with our parachuting Queen.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.