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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    Republicanism has generally remained at a steady 20%. Monarchism is actually at a similar level with the majority ambivalent. Bear in mind that republicanism gets no coverage in education, and very little in the media. From day 1 all we are told is that monarchy and castles are all lovely because they're British.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    I don't remember being told that at school. It strikes me that you're making rather poor excuses for the lack of support for Republicanism tbh.

    People just aren't enthusiastic about the idea of being a Republic because it just wouldn't bring any advantages. A proper constitutional monarch who behaves like the Queen, i.e. keeps her mouth shut and represents the country in a favourable manner is perfectly democratic and has many positives.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    No thanks. The only reason France adopted their present system is because they were so politically unstable that they chose a more authoritarian regime to prevent themselves falling apart. It is actually a far less democratic regime than our own. Their president has the power to enact laws by decree without parliamentary oversight.


    Actually, clearly you think it is, as you have singularly described every ceremonial Head of State as a great big con. Please share some of your hidden insight.
    France did undergo a brief restoration of the monarchy which proved unpopular so they went back to the republican system-and there has been no great demand to have it back since. You insinuate that the French president is some kind of dictator unchecked by the people; if he does a poor job, he wont be elected back in-simple.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AJ_Moose)
    I don't remember being told that at school. It strikes me that you're making rather poor excuses for the lack of support for Republicanism tbh.

    People just aren't enthusiastic about the idea of being a Republic because it just wouldn't bring any advantages. A proper constitutional monarch who behaves like the Queen, i.e. keeps her mouth shut and represents the country in a favourable manner is perfectly democratic and has many positives.
    People's educational experiences vary widely I'm sure you'll agree. The Queen hasn't had to make a difficult decision her entire life-that is left to politicians who take flak off the people instead.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AJ_Moose)
    … A proper constitutional monarch who behaves like the Queen, i.e. keeps her mouth shut and represents the country in a favourable manner is perfectly democratic and has many positives.
    It’s not democratic.
    It may be legitimate, and it may bring positives, but it isn’t democratic.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    North Korea is a republic, Soviet Russia was a republic, China is a republic...

    No thanks
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    France did undergo a brief restoration of the monarchy which proved unpopular so they went back to the republican system-and there has been no great demand to have it back since.
    Actually, the Third Republic only came about as an interim provision. Did you know that they invited the King to take over, but he declined? The plan was to wait until he died and his son could succeed. He ended up living for another 20 years, by which time everyone had forgotten about it.

    You insinuate that the French president is some kind of dictator unchecked by the people; if he does a poor job, he wont be elected back in-simple.
    Simple. As is the fact that any monarch who did a poor job can be dismissed by Parliament in a heartbeat.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    People's educational experiences vary widely I'm sure you'll agree. The Queen hasn't had to make a difficult decision her entire life-that is left to politicians who take flak off the people instead.
    Oh, well, that settles it then. The only real jobs are one with manual labour and where tough decisions are made. You've heard it here first, folks.

    I'm getting a job in a coal mine, otherwise my life is worthless.

    So, Midlander, what's your degree in? Ore refining?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    52p from every person every year.We could build hospitals,roads,jobs,grants or have lower taxes

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...itain-52p.html
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by playingcards)
    It’s not democratic.
    It may be legitimate, and it may bring positives, but it isn’t democratic.
    It is democratic. Demonstrate that it violates the public will for the monarchy to exist. I think opinion polls will disappoint you.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    52p from every person every year.We could build hospitals,roads,jobs,grants or have lower taxes

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...itain-52p.html
    I see you ignore information you find inconvenient. That 52p would go to the new President.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Again, the fact that she does not do heavy manual labour or long hours in an office shifting papers doesn't mean it can't be classified as work. Exactly what part of that are you not getting? The same can be said for other senior royals who do much of the same work.

    So in short, hosting a banquet qualifies as 'work'. I'd love to sign up to this evil form of labour. The other royals are even bigger scroungers who sponge off their family name to get fame and reputation-their banquet hosting duties are smaller as well.


    Irrelevant.

    This is such ridiculous "logic" that I'm almost at a loss as to how to respond. The fact that some people do similar things and for free as well as their normal job is besides the point. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the Queen and it certainly doesn't mean that what she does can be described as work any less.
    What she and the other senior royals do is travel around acting as representatives for the country, Some work to promote education and the environment, some like Prince Andrew work to promote business. So how exactly is that not work?
    Prince Charles isn't so much pretending to be a scientist, he's simply working to promote science which is actually important in case you weren't aware. Especially when it's promoting careers of science in young people. But don't let your raging bitterness and jealousy get in the way of that will you.

    Again, none of this is difficult. Put on a smile, shake a few hands, job done. It's so easy to put your name onto a charity, and to go and tell people how to live their lives. As a scientist myself Charles' blithering waffle doesn't strike much of a cord. Just because his surname is Windsor that doesn't elevate him above every scientist going, and to say that he promotes the careers of young scientists is garbage. I owe none of what I have done, and will do, to him.


    See above. And you might not think it's arduous but considering the Queen is elderly and yet still has what might be considered a long routine some days I think she might consider it rather arduous and difficult at times.
    I'm astounded that anyone, even a pensioner, could find eating arduous.
    Answers in bold.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Actually, the Third Republic only came about as an interim provision. Did you know that they invited the King to take over, but he declined? The plan was to wait until he died and his son could succeed. He ended up living for another 20 years, by which time everyone had forgotten about it.



    Simple. As is the fact that any monarch who did a poor job can be dismissed by Parliament in a heartbeat.
    No,it's the Queen that can dismiss the government.She doesn't do it now to avoid critics but she still could.Monarchy is not democratic
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Oh, well, that settles it then. The only real jobs are one with manual labour and where tough decisions are made. You've heard it here first, folks.

    I'm getting a job in a coal mine, otherwise my life is worthless.

    So, Midlander, what's your degree in? Ore refining?
    Coal mining was one of countless examples I could have provided. Why do you qualify eating high quality food as a taxing endeavour?

    Oh, and I'm a chemist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I see you ignore information you find inconvenient. That 52p would go to the new President.
    No,he would cost a small part of that.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    No,it's the Queen that can dismiss the government.She doesn't do it now to avoid critics but she still could.Monarchy is not democratic
    She could, but she'd never do it. It's not simply to 'avoid critics'. It's because doing so without clearly defending the constitution would anger the people who would elect a Parliament to create a republic, or at the very least put someone else on the throne.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    Coal mining was one of countless examples I could have provided. Why do you qualify eating high quality food as a taxing endeavour?

    Oh, and I'm a chemist.
    You haven't answered my earlier question. If it's so easy and pointless, why has every country decided to have one?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Actually, the Third Republic only came about as an interim provision. Did you know that they invited the King to take over, but he declined? The plan was to wait until he died and his son could succeed. He ended up living for another 20 years, by which time everyone had forgotten about it.



    Simple. As is the fact that any monarch who did a poor job can be dismissed by Parliament in a heartbeat.
    I doubt any politician would have the bottle to do such a thing. The monarch is not truly accountable to the electorate-whereas a president is.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    No,he would cost a small part of that.
    Prove it.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    You haven't answered my earlier question. If it's so easy and pointless, why has every country decided to have one?
    I did answer but it seems to have been glossed over. I didn't call for all heads of state to be removed-what I actually said was that I don't see much point in ceremonial ones. The most powerful country in the world has been a republic its entire existence with a non-ceremonial leader at the top.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    I doubt any politician would have the bottle to do such a thing.
    Not have the bottle to do what? To remove a monarch? Why not?

    Is it because *gasp* the monarchy is popular?

    The monarch is not truly accountable to the electorate-whereas a president is.
    The monarch is perfectly accountable. I like how you give the French president a sweeping pardon for his potentially dictatorial powers but you don't give the monarchy the same courtesy.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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.