Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    Just thought it relevant and potentially of interest if we're ever allowed to see it. Is there really any need for the *******ery?
    We will, seeing as the monarchy has no power to veto a television program. I imagine it could be down to copyright issues, really.

    Non-story, at the end of the day. Looks like the Palace 'PR team' is pretty humdrum.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The world is not perfect and compromises have to be made.

    Our monarchical structure has evolved slowly over nearly a millennium to be little more than ceremonial. But it is functioning as a system.

    The presidential system is flawed in many ways. When the president is a politician, they have party allegiance - when in conflict with the government, nothing gets done by either (USA). Presidents have a tendency to have immunity from prosecution and, as they are only human sub-human, two-faced, lying, self-serving, politicians, go on a thieving spree (Africa and Italy).

    World's Ten Most Corrupt Leaders
    President of Indonesia (1967–1998)
    President of the Philippines (1972–1986)
    President of Zaire (1965–1997)
    President of Nigeria (1993–1998)
    President of Serbia/Yugoslavia (1989–2000)
    President of Haiti (1971–1986)
    President of Peru (1990–2000)
    Prime Minister of Ukraine (1996–1997) <---- How did he get in this list?
    President of Nicaragua (1997–2002)
    President of the Philippines (1998–2001)


    The Royal Family are a lot cheaper and under far closer scrutiny than any president could be.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Why settle for democracy when you can have communism instead?
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by gladders)
    How so? First of all, she's under such constant surveillance that she has no opportunity to commit a crime; and if she was, she'd be deposed, and then put on trial for that crime. It's quite simple. Only the monarch is 'immune' from the law as the embodiment of it; non-sovereigns, including members of the royal family, are still subject to it.



    They aren't 'owned'. That's not been a concept for the British state for centuries. It's Her Majesty's Government as constitutionally she remains an executive monarch, even if in reality the monarchy long since ceased to be so; just like Obama's cabinet. Same with Her Majesty's Treasury - it's not her property, but it answers to her whim as Head of the Executive.



    That's fine, and that's why we have the House of Lords. Having the Head of State be elected won't make scientists and artists any closer to government. If it did, believe me, I'd be a republican in a second.



    That's assuming everyone thinks like you do and dislikes the notion of the government being associated with the monarchy. I, and many others, find it refreshing, historic, grand, and practical. If the only argument for changing it is because it feels wrong, I can't endorse it.



    Not at all.
    I did not say they were literally owned by the monarchy, hence the quotation marks and describing it as owned in name. You may have misunderstoof my point about scientists and artists etc. I said that scientists and artists should be the people who are though of when people look at britain rather than a small family in a big castle.

    Also it is good to fix things before they go wrong.

    Also in practice she can break small laws and get away with them where the 'commoner' wouldn't. And she would be less likely to be removed for such small things. Richard Nixon as president was under just as much if not as much as the queen, yet he still had the time to carry out watergate.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    ...what? A PR team paid for by the public?

    You mean like Downing Street, the Treasury, the Foreign Office, MoD, or a dozen other public institutions? Gosh, somehow it sounds appalling when the monarchy use it.
    Yes, they're completely the same a democratically elected public body that changes fairly regularly and an unelected dynasty!

    I'll start listening if Philip Hammond is made foreign secretary for life, that being passed on to his heir.

    Honestly, if you blame your failures on the existence of Press Office...:hahaha:
    My failures? I'm not overly bothered about it, it's kind of like a few million going missing in the treasury. It doesn't really affect me, but we should probably do something about it.

    Why couldn't we be a republic? It does the same thing only a lot cheaper and actually allows the possibility of a relatively normal person getting the job.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)

    World's Ten Most Corrupt Leaders
    President of Indonesia (1967–1998)
    President of the Philippines (1972–1986)
    President of Zaire (1965–1997)
    President of Nigeria (1993–1998)
    President of Serbia/Yugoslavia (1989–2000)
    President of Haiti (1971–1986)
    President of Peru (1990–2000)
    Prime Minister of Ukraine (1996–1997) <---- How did he get in this list?
    President of Nicaragua (1997–2002)
    President of the Philippines (1998–2001)
    Sorry this is completely invalidated by the fact that all these presidents are from third world countries, the only European on there is actually a PM!

    You come back when Germany, Iteland and France are on that list.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RotatingPhasor)
    I did not say they were literally owned by the monarchy, hence the quotation marks and describing it as owned in name. You may have misunderstoof my point about scientists and artists etc. I said that scientists and artists should be the people who are though of when people look at britain rather than a small family in a big castle.
    Why not both? That's what we manage now.

    Also it is good to fix things before they go wrong.
    Quite, but I am disputing the premise that something is wrong.

    Also in practice she can break small laws and get away with them where the 'commoner' wouldn't. And she would be less likely to be removed for such small things. Richard Nixon as president was under just as much if not as much as the queen, yet he still had the time to carry out watergate.
    I think that's not something unique to monarchy and is actually something that pertains to high office. I don't approve of it myself, but replacing the monarchy with a republic won't improve matters. Seeing as the Queen has, to our knowledge, conducted her office impeccably, I don't think we're doing that bad!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Yes, they're completely the same a democratically elected public body that changes fairly regularly and an unelected dynasty!

    I'll start listening if Philip Hammond is made foreign secretary for life, that being passed on to his heir.
    Now that's moving the goalposts. We're talking about the premise that their 'PR team' is what keeps them popular and stops Britain becoming a republic. Stick to what you implied, please.

    Why couldn't we be a republic? It does the same thing only a lot cheaper
    Not true.

    and actually allows the possibility of a relatively normal person getting the job.
    Not likely. Have you seen other Heads of State?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Sorry this is completely invalidated by the fact that all these presidents are from third world countries, the only European on there is actually a PM!
    Serbia / Yugoslavia will be pleased to know they are 3rd world, non-European countries.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    You come back when Germany, Iteland and France are on that list.
    "German President Christian Wulff has announced his resignation, after prosecutors called for his immunity to be lifted. An ally of Chancellor Angela Merkel, Mr Wulff, 52, stepped down over corruption claims involving a dubious home loan. He denies any wrongdoing."

    "Irish President Haughey's personal wealth and extravagant lifestyle – he owned racehorses,[36] a large motor sailing yacht Celtic Mist, a private island, and a Gandon-designed mansion – had long been a point of curious speculation; he had refused throughout his career to answer any questions about how he financed this lifestyle on a government salary.[37] Despite his professed desire to fade from public attention, these questions followed him into retirement, eventually exploding into a series of political, financial and personal scandals that tarnished his image and reputation."

    France: "Former president of France formally charged in a move which could wreck hopes of political comeback"

    Italy: "Controversies surrounding Silvio Berlusconi"
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Although Berlusconi isn't the Italian President, but the cost of the Italian presidency is otherwise phenomenal.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Now that's moving the goalposts. We're talking about the premise that their 'PR team' is what keeps them popular and stops Britain becoming a republic. Stick to what you implied, please.
    Tbh I don't think it is moving the goal posts- there is a real difference in the monarchy and the government using PR.

    Why should they have a PR team?

    Why should this family be allowed to veto BBC documentaries and have the (supposedly politically neutral) Charles have letters to MPs protected from scrutiny?

    Not true.
    Is true.

    Ireland's PM earns 250 000 euros a year. I am reasonably confidant that the royal family ( all of them ) cost far, far more. That includes travel, protection and housing.

    Not likely. Have you seen other Heads of State?

    Ireland's one seems pretty decent enough. Any specific European presidents on mind?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    Serbia / Yugoslavia will be pleased to know they are 3rd world, non-European countries.



    "Irish President Haughey's personal wealth and extravagant lifestyle – he owned racehorses,[36] a large motor sailing yacht Celtic Mist, a private island, and a Gandon-designed mansion – had long been a point of curious speculation; he had refused throughout his career to answer any questions about how he financed this lifestyle on a government salary.[37] Despite his professed desire to fade from public attention, these questions followed him into retirement, eventually exploding into a series of political, financial and personal scandals that tarnished his image and reputation."

    [/URL]"
    Charlie Haughey was Taoiseach (Prime Minister) NOT President. Actually, the Irish national television channel is running a three - part drama at the moment about Haughey starring Aiden Gillen as the lead character.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Tbh I don't think it is moving the goal posts- there is a real difference in the monarchy and the government using PR.
    Why? It's a pretty necessary thing for a public body in this day and age.

    Why should they have a PR team?
    To inform and educate the public on the functions, history, and activities of the monarchy.

    Why should this family be allowed to veto BBC documentaries
    As has been demonstrated, they didn't - copyright issues over archive footage have arisen, which has delayed broadcast, not vetoed it.

    and have the (supposedly politically neutral) Charles have letters to MPs protected from scrutiny?
    As future Head of State, he has the duty to be in converse with the government of the day and make his views and opinions known, just as the government retains and exercises its right to politely ignore everything he suggests.

    Is true.

    Ireland's PM earns 250 000 euros a year. I am reasonably confidant that the royal family ( all of them ) cost far, far more. That includes travel, protection and housing.

    Ireland's one seems pretty decent enough. Any specific European presidents on mind?
    Ireland is a small country with little international diplomatic weight. Britain is one of the world's Great Powers.

    The German presidency's cost is approximate to the British one. The Italian one is apparently many times more expensive, and the French presidency too.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    Serbia / Yugoslavia will be pleased to know they are 3rd world, non-European countries.
    Haha ok I admit I messed up there, although I don't think they'd qualify as first world countries as the place is a war torn mess.


    "German President Christian Wulff has announced his resignation, after prosecutors called for his immunity to be lifted. An ally of Chancellor Angela Merkel, Mr Wulff, 52, stepped down over corruption claims involving a dubious home loan. He denies any wrongdoing."

    "Irish President Haughey's personal wealth and extravagant lifestyle – he owned racehorses,[36] a large motor sailing yacht Celtic Mist, a private island, and a Gandon-designed mansion – had long been a point of curious speculation; he had refused throughout his career to answer any questions about how he financed this lifestyle on a government salary.[37] Despite his professed desire to fade from public attention, these questions followed him into retirement, eventually exploding into a series of political, financial and personal scandals that tarnished his image and reputation."

    France: "Former president of France formally charged in a move which could wreck hopes of political comeback"

    Italy: "Controversies surrounding Silvio Berlusconi"
    The German one was cleared of all charges.

    Even with all these scandals it is still pertaining to one individual and not an entire family.

    Most importantly these people have all been removed from office!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Even with all these scandals it is still pertaining to one individual and not an entire family.
    How is it pertaining to an entire family in the UK? Has the Queen done something wrong which somehow means the whole family has committed a crime?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Not all about the money, just throwing this in there for the hell of it, might be interesting to some:

    http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co...us-richer.html
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RotatingPhasor)
    My quarrel is not financial, it is democratic. Even though they may not have as much power as they once did we can not call ourselves a democracy if we allow unelected heads of state. I value democracy above the profits gained from this family and wish to rid our country of this cast like system where these people are above us based upon the blood that runs through their veins...

    Why have undiluted, pure democracy? Like any other uncompromising and extreme stance, it creates more problems than it solves. I believe the British constitutional system has evolved a rather elegant and clever solution to this by diluting democracy to some extent. Parliament is elected and has supremacy, but it's excesses are tempered by the House of Lords and the Judiciary.

    Both of the latter are unelected and apparently "undemocratic" but I would not change them and lose the advice of learned, intelligent individuals who set a much greater store on integrity than the House of Commons. Not as long as both are able and willing to speak their minds because they don't need to care what the voters think. Having politicians who care too much about being popular at the expense of doing the right thing is one major failing of democratic systems.

    Part of the Monarch's role is to be a reminder to the prime minister of the day that, for all his power and popularity, he remains a servant of the State. That is why he must ask permission to form a government, why he must see the Queen every week, and why he is said to rule at her pleasure. In republics around the World you can see the elected presidents languishing in ridiculous palaces, but here in Britain, our elected leader's official residence is an unglamorous terraced townhouse.

    Douglas Adams summed up, rather well I think, the problem with elected individuals...

    ‘The major problem — one of the major problems, for there are several — one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

    The Princes have often spoken of their desire to just be ordinary, that's why Harry went off to serve in Afghanistan like a normal soldier. They don't want the job but they have such an ingrained sense of tradition, duty and integrity that they become excellent candidates for the role of head of state. A role which should involved unifying a country and symbolising it's heart and spirit rather than dividing us all on partisan, political lines.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Sorry this is completely invalidated by the fact that all these presidents are from third world countries, the only European on there is actually a PM!

    You come back when Germany, Iteland and France are on that list.
    Would that be republican germany, France, Italy and Portugal that embraced Fascism in a big way?

    It's easy to criticise the UKs parliamentary democracy headed by a constitutional monarch, but the UK hasn't embraced any political crazies since Cromwell
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I would if there was a local protest, but there isn't
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I love the monarchy, but can someone be really nice and tell me what exactly they do??

    Also, if we become a republic, who'd go on the other side of the coin? And United Republic (UR) doesn't sound as nice as United Kingdom
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.