Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Referendum against the monarchy Watch

  • View Poll Results: Monarchy or republic
    Monarchy
    130
    57.02%
    Republic
    98
    42.98%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchild007)
    I'm sorry but this is JUST UTTER NONSENSE.

    As someone who actually lives in New York (and has done for half of my life), this BBC article is just fallacious nonsense.

    They did a similar story when the wedding was first announced, about how everyone in the US was mad about the wedding and it was making front page news - the only papers it made the front pages on was the likes of Stars and Enquirer (i.e. our versions of Okay and Hello etc), and the source they used in the article itself, was some random women from Akansas.

    Likewise in the article above, they've got some random salon and blown it way out of proportion.

    I don't mind/care if people in the UK are going potty over the wedding b/c of the excitement, but it really annoys me when the British media have to justify this delirious reaction by saying, "Oh look, even the Americans are excited as us; we must mean something". No.

    No one cares here - or at least, more people care about Eva Longoria breaking up with her husband, than two royals getting married.
    well to be fair US papers are utterly retarded
    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...gland-1-1.html

    but the reason british papers are like "look even us papers are talking bout it" is because its more a "WOW how sad are america, reporting our news, nothing better i guess"
    and new york, lol thats hardly a representation of america, its like saying londoners a good example of the english
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Pretty sure tourists would still come to London in flocks?

    As although many of you seem to be unaware that there are many more sites to see within London. It's not just the Palace, and anyway you could always just maintain the Palace and chuck the Royal Family out.

    :crown:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swell)
    Pretty sure tourists would still come to London in flocks?

    As although many of you seem to be unaware that there are many more sites to see within London. It's not just the Palace, and anyway you could always just maintain the Palace and chuck the Royal Family out.

    :crown:
    for what? the monarchy comes with the palace, with them its just another old building
    monachy means the changing of the gaurds, a very big attractiong
    and its what a lot of people love about britain
    without that its just another city really, nothing holding it apart from other european countries + im guessing with our weather we need the queen to balance it out
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    A choice- the Queen, then King Charles for 10-15 years, then King William; or President Thatcher, President Blair, or someone like President Sarkozy. I'd have the Queen and her successors every time, ceremony aside from party politics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f00ddude)
    well to be fair US papers are utterly retarded
    Yes, b/c we all know, the English papers are bastians of sensibility *Puts away chocolate bar in fear of contracting cancer in accordance to the DM*

    but the reason british papers are like "look even us papers are talking bout it" is because its more a "WOW how sad are america, reporting our news, nothing better i guess"
    Given the utter levels of hyperbole and jubilation in the news reports, its quite clear that its more a case of, "Oh, look even the Americans are talking about us; we finally matter, we are of some importance again, instead of being an inconspicuous island". Made all the more pathetic/sad, by the fact that no one in America actually cares :rolleyes:

    Oh and believe it or not, but you don't have to travel everywhere in the US to catch a sense of the general US reaction - surprisingly newspapers are sold everywhere and likewise, TV news shown everywhere too . The fact that it didn't make the papers headlines (bar our trashy celeb magazines - even then it wasn't beaten to the front cover by the likes of Ryan Reynolds being voted the sexiest man of the year ha!) or within news shows, bar 1 or 2 shows in the 'look, its the last story we have on an otherwise slow news day' segments. You guys still don't matter unfortunately...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f00ddude)
    for what? the monarchy comes with the palace, with them its just another old building
    monachy means the changing of the gaurds, a very big attractiong
    and its what a lot of people love about britain
    without that its just another city really, nothing holding it apart from other european countries + im guessing with our weather we need the queen to balance it out
    How many people actually do see any members of the Royal Family when they go and look at the Palace? Not many. I agree it's a fair point you're making there about the guards, but you could also easily keep them, 'guarding the palace'. Big Ben, Tower of London, Houses of Parliament, Cockney Tours and many many many more sites.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I apologise, I read something in this which wasn't there, which was very silly of me. Forgive and forget?
    Of course buddy
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Umm the royals do actually serve in the military. Prince Harry served out in Afganistan.

    The monarchy have no power. Getting rid of them hardly moves the country forward. And its not a tired old argument it remains to be true. The royal wedding will bring in 500 million pounds. They also have mass popularity in other countries like the US for example. Plus events like the changing of the guard would not happen if we did not have a monarchy their would be no point.
    again this 500 million figure seems to be your answer to every post, its not a massive amount really, and we won't see any off unless your the one making profit, questionable about the mass popularity its only really japan and the USA

    changing of the guard would still happen, have you not seen what happens in and around the white house

    them serving is not like you and I serving, hats off to harry to going, he has earnt it, but the other are getting high ranks for no reason
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Can we just say that the tourism/cost matter is irrelevant? Cos it is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caspa)
    came on that line is getting sad now, same old wheeled out argument to why we can't move forward as a country

    they don't personal bring in that money, you don't pay to see the queen, you pay to look at a building and see changing off the graud
    all of happens if the queen is there or not, 9 times out of 10 during the summer when everyone comes to london, shes not even in london

    doubt other royals bring in that money, who want to see the duke of kent, or Prince Edward

    than they get given a load of military honorary without serving a day

    its a old out dated system that this country needs to change so we can move forward

    but oh no the money brought in too look at a building
    Prince Andrew flew live missions during the Falklands War. Prince Philip saw active service during WW2. Prince Harry served in Afghanistan.

    Do you really think people would care about these buildings if it wasnt for the history and active heritage of them? Buckingham Palace isn't even that nice, the fact the Queen lives there is what draws tourists.

    The changing of the guard would be pointless if there's no Monarch, the same way a band would be pointless with no instruments to play.

    It's an old system that has served us well for centuries. Please explain to me how having a republic would move britain forward?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hedfunk)
    Prince Andrew flew live missions during the Falklands War. Prince Philip saw active service during WW2. Prince Harry served in Afghanistan.
    3 out of countless others who hold ranks higher than they should for no reason, they are not given there ranks because of how well or good they are, but because who that are

    Do you really think people would care about these buildings if it wasnt for the history and active heritage of them? Buckingham Palace isn't even that nice, the fact the Queen lives there is what draws tourists.
    people seems to go to countless over building that have heritage to them, so thats a pointless come back, who do people go see st pauls and so

    The changing of the guard would be pointless if there's no Monarch, the same way a band would be pointless with no instruments to play.
    why, who says you need a monarch, again in the summer months when they mainly do that, the queen is not even there, so whats the point of doing than

    It's an old system that has served us well for centuries. Please explain to me how having a republic would move britain forward?
    a republic would base more checks and balances on the way government works, the way bills are passed, and maybe at last we would have a elected head, cos if you know anything we not elected our PM

    you tell me why the current system is so great that someone by the luck of birth can be seen as great
    • TSR Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I don't lean on the tourism argument much, but VisitBritain earlier this year produced stats that showed the main motivation for people visiting Britain is the history and royal connections.

    HECK! every tourist would pay to see the inside of Buckingham palace:rolleyes: .. tourism would probably double!!
    To see the inside of a dour, boring, garish town house? Really?

    Buckingham Palace is NOTHING like Versailles.



    They do. A phenomenal amount. Their level of charity work is incredible, there's few people more involved in the country as they.

    The monarchy's functions are broadly on a par to the presidencies of Germany and Italy - which are unelected and non-executive too.



    So you're arguing for an executive monarchy? :eek:[/QUOTE]

    hey even I want to see the inside of Buckingham Palace .. like room for room.

    but yeah, i know they do charity work and i find that fantastic because they raise awareness for issues like that.

    But alongside charity work i would expect them to be involved with the politics of the country and voicing concerns about issues people are worried about. I'm not really voting for an executive monarchy because having them fully in charge takes away the point of elections and so on. But I would want them to show awareness and have at least discussed major issues like the war, the country's debt/deficit, tuition fee rises etc. I wanna see their stance on those issues.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caspa)
    3 out of countless others who hold ranks higher than they should for no reason, they are not given there ranks because of how well or good they are, but because who that are
    But for the royals, their military offices are honorary and hold no executive function - they do not command, but instead kind of act as patrons and sponsors to different regiments. I see no harm in that.

    people seems to go to countless over building that have heritage to them, so thats a pointless come back, who do people go see st pauls and so
    People go to St Pauls because it's a unique and beautiful building, and also more to do with religion than with monarchy.

    why, who says you need a monarch, again in the summer months when they mainly do that, the queen is not even there, so whats the point of doing than
    Because they're associated with monarchy; and anyway I think you exaggerate the amount of time they are away from London. Even then, it's good for them to get away from London to do work elsewhere.

    a republic would base more checks and balances on the way government works, the way bills are passed, and maybe at last we would have a elected head, cos if you know anything we not elected our PM
    Would it? What type of president are you advocating? If we became a republic, it is 99% likely we'd adopt a ceremonial position which would continue to perform a similar role to the present monarchy. There would be no alteration to our checks and balances. As I keep telling you, we're broadly on the same plain as Germany's system.

    you tell me why the current system is so great that someone by the luck of birth can be seen as great
    The present system works because it keeps ceremonial services and symbols separate from the government of the day, and ensures the Head of State remains impartial. Inheritance in the Head of State is the most effective way of ensuring the office is depoliticised. Election would not achieve this.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by getfunky!)
    But alongside charity work i would expect them to be involved with the politics of the country and voicing concerns about issues people are worried about. I'm not really voting for an executive monarchy because having them fully in charge takes away the point of elections and so on. But I would want them to show awareness and have at least discussed major issues like the war, the country's debt/deficit, tuition fee rises etc. I wanna see their stance on those issues.
    Well I'm afraid that's not going to happen - to break their silence on political issues would politicise the institution and endanger it. It is better that they keep aloof and only get involved when the normal operation of the Constitution is endangered, or unforeseen constitutional crises take place.

    It is not the monarch's place to make policy or influence public opinion. Their influence, such as it is, does and must remain private in conversations with the government away from public eyes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tnetinbum)
    Being a republic won't be much different. You'll just pay millions to a president who does sod all, and is probably some slimy career politician.
    Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I actually value the principles of democracy. If we are to have a head of state, I'd rather it was a qualified elected sponger, as opposed to an unqualified, unelected sponger.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unvincibledudeman)
    Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I actually value the principles of democracy. If we are to have a head of state, I'd rather it was a qualified elected sponger, as opposed to an unqualified, unelected sponger.
    As I said, electing the Head of State in the UK wouldn't add to our democracy at all. We'd remain as democratic as today, because we already have a democratic government.

    And you can't say an elected President would be qualified. Election makes absolutely no attempt to assure competence - only popularity. At least inheritance ensures they get a lifetime training for the job.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Well I'm afraid that's not going to happen - to break their silence on political issues would politicise the institution and endanger it. It is better that they keep aloof and only get involved when the normal operation of the Constitution is endangered, or unforeseen constitutional crises take place.

    It is not the monarch's place to make policy or influence public opinion. Their influence, such as it is, does and must remain private in conversations with the government away from public eyes.
    well i do see your point, It would be unlikely that they decide to give their opinions and have to remain private on matters with the government.

    However, I would like to see the opinions of people in power. For example, Wikileaks' exposure on the wars and the recent cables documents have been excellent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    But for the royals, their military offices are honorary and hold no executive function - they do not command, but instead kind of act as patrons and sponsors to different regiments. I see no harm in that.
    why should they hold tha rank when many have not seviced, all well and good that a few do, but someone like Prince Edward why should he hold a rank
    he shouldn't of even got into Cambridge, his A-level where far below the As that are needed

    People go to St Pauls because it's a unique and beautiful building, and also more to do with religion than with monarchy.
    there you go most building at unique and beautiful, its nothing to do with religion most people don't have a clue about that

    Because they're associated with monarchy; and anyway I think you exaggerate the amount of time they are away from London. Even then, it's good for them to get away from London to do work elsewhere.
    its not really exaggerate, more less every weekend is spent away from london, easter, summer and xmas as well

    Would it? What type of president are you advocating? If we became a republic, it is 99% likely we'd adopt a ceremonial position which would continue to perform a similar role to the present monarchy. There would be no alteration to our checks and balances. As I keep telling you, we're broadly on the same plain as Germany's system.
    thats why we need a elected house of lords, it would make checks and balances because you cna have a head who is off a differnet party to government who can veto laws that they view are wrong, the queen can't not veto any more, if she was too boy we would be waving goodbye to her
    why does it have to be the germany system, we need a full change, we need to a head of state that can check on the those voting for laws, and the other way around, we need a upper house that can have a say, because they are unelected now they can be over ruled

    The present system works because it keeps ceremonial services and symbols separate from the government of the day, and ensures the Head of State remains impartial. Inheritance in the Head of State is the most effective way of ensuring the office is depoliticised. Election would not achieve this
    the PM normally in a lot of ceremonial meeting head of state, why should the head of state be impartial, whats up with having a head of state that can keep a check on government

    election are the way forward, how can anyone support someone by the luck of birth is seen as better than everyone

    inheritance means you can end up with some fool and you can't remove them until they died
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pitch)
    They're rich because we pay them millions every year.Anyone could be rich in this way
    They're rich because they earn millions on their already millions of fortune which has gathered over the centuries.

    They have a fortune of over 250 million.

    Thats at least 10mill a year on interest.

    And they earn their living by being Royals - they have a ****-ton of duties etc that they are bound too....I certainly wouldn't want to be born famous, having to go to all these duty bound things as a kid and not being able to have a proper child-hood.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f00ddude)
    well to be fair US papers are utterly retarded
    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...gland-1-1.html

    but the reason british papers are like "look even us papers are talking bout it" is because its more a "WOW how sad are america, reporting our news, nothing better i guess"
    and new york, lol thats hardly a representation of america, its like saying londoners a good example of the english
    Most Americans I know don't care much about the Royals, except for the purpose of making fun of them on occasion.

    I'm pretty sure that New York paper with the soccer headline was a reference to a game years ago. It was a joke. I think there's a thread about it here somewhere.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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.