What does good does the Monarchy really do ? Watch

Comeback
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#121
Report 4 years ago
#121
(Original post by gladders)
Very, very few of the elected politicians have anything in common with the people. So why do you think election would solve this apparent problem?

For the record, the attitudes of the previous monarchs of the past century, when their thoughts have been disclosed, has shown that they have considerably more sympathy with the downtrodden than most people in their governments. So the concept that you have to be of a people to understand them is utter rot.
So? If people want to elect mean people they should have a right to. It's convenient if a non-elected head of state is nice (and nicer than those elected in government) but the idea of them having no choice over it is absurd and wrong.
0
reply
Comeback
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#122
Report 4 years ago
#122
(Original post by gladders)
And yet our relations to both Ireland and India are pretty good. Ireland in particular had a royal visit a few years back which was enormously successful and healed wounds. The grievances that remain are rightly targeted towards our elected government.
That is wonderful and all - our unelected head of state healing wounds abroad. But the fact they are unelected means if they chose not to/someone inherited the throne who didn't wish to heal wounds then no progress would ever be made.

We, the public, should have the chance to TRY to elect a government that heals wounds. So what if our elected government fails to do so? We can kick them out and try again.

Even if we elect a government that causes war or ruins relations, having an unelected figure runs the same risk.

Your argument seems (do tell me if I'm wrong) to centre on the idea that the Monarchy we currently has works - and would work better (possibly) than a presidential figure. You may be right, but that is no reason to let them and their descendents represent you with a risk they may change or worsen.
0
reply
Comeback
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#123
Report 4 years ago
#123
(Original post by Midlander)
My preference is for a HoS with executive powers. However if we must have a ceremonial leader my preference is for this to be an elected position so we aren't dependent on the lottery of birth for a position of status, wealth and privilege. There is a big difference between someone (and their family) ruling the country for life, and one individual running it for a specified term.

(Original post by Onde)
If Sinn Fein politicians are 'unable' to sit in the House of Commons because they are obliged to swear an oath to the Queen, isn't this unnecessarily damaging? (of course, if they were unwilling to swear an oath not involving the queen, this is a moot point).
(Original post by jammy4041)
I can't really think of anything either. I'm a proud republican and long for the day that Britain is freed of its chains of monarchy.
:five:
0
reply
jammy4041
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#124
Report 4 years ago
#124
(Original post by Onde)
If Sinn Fein politicians are 'unable' to sit in the House of Commons because they are obliged to swear an oath to the Queen, isn't this unnecessarily damaging? (of course, if they were unwilling to swear an oath not involving the queen, this is a moot point).
A lot of Republicans will make that "oath" with their fingers crossed behind their back. But, it's ridiculous that it has to be done anyway.
0
reply
The Dictator
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#125
Report 4 years ago
#125
There are no good arguments for the monarchy at all. We keep them there, for show, and because we're lazy.
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#126
Report 4 years ago
#126
(Original post by The Dictator)
There are no good arguments for the monarchy at all. We keep them there, for show, and because we're lazy.
No you're wrong they do a lot for Britain. Someone's got to eat those banquets whilst their subjects use food banks. The royal tailor has to keep making new belts for HM to keep up with the post-banquet waistline.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
rbgpwer
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#127
Report 4 years ago
#127
(Original post by Maz93)
I'm a staunch republican and I get a lot of hatred from the vast majority of people when I say that I am - they seem to think I'm attacking our national values or something. What I would really like to know if you are a monarchist what good do you think they have done our country ? because I can't think of anything, but then again I'm biased
Knowing the inexistent power the monarchy has in the legislative of executive power, it has only a cultural interest. It represents the historical and cultural identity of what lead UK to be what it is today
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#128
Report 4 years ago
#128
(Original post by Comeback)
1. The monarchy does not make our country unique in any respect that a President would not also. Other countries have monarchies, the difference being the details in the system and the monarch/royal family (as the differences between presidential families).
No, but monarchy is less common, you have to admit, and that makes it inherently more select. And there's certainly uniqueness in its rich and ancient history.

2. A living, breathing link to our country's past and origins? How exactly? The Queen is old, but elderly people would be able to run for President to. How would they have less of a link to the past?
Through being of biological descent to the predecessor. You may scoff at this, but it's inescapable that such a thing is still of value to people. Perhaps not in terms of having the right to govern (and no monarch now has that), but as a means of showing a form of continuity in a world of change.

3. It is a powerful tool for national cohesion but so is any leader/figure - elected or unelected.
But monarchy can and does have an edge, as an impartial, apolitical convenor. Not many presidents, when elected, can manage that.

4. A social constant in an ever-changing world? Our royal family is constantly changing. People are dying and others are being born, and everyone within it is growing older and with age comes altered views/interests/appearances.
Of course, how did what I state deny this?

I respect your opinion and interest in the subject but can't help feel that you are trying to find the positives in a truly outdated and odd system.
And I can't help but feel you are determined to pick holes in a still working, healthy, relevant and democratic system.

I respect our royal family as people - I'm sure they're very nice - and can see the novelty element in what they do (like celebrities). However, I don't see why they are still here and what purpose they serve that could not be served by an elected figure or body.
Well, I can only restate what I have said above - they're historic, impartial, popular, and do the job damn well. There's considerable more checks and balances on an unelected, ceremonial Head of State that an elected one, who could be tempted to 'get involved' when it concerns his interests.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#129
Report 4 years ago
#129
(Original post by Comeback)
So? If people want to elect mean people they should have a right to. It's convenient if a non-elected head of state is nice (and nicer than those elected in government) but the idea of them having no choice over it is absurd and wrong.
I never denied that, but the question is whether doing so actually adds value. Electing a ceremonial position does not, in my opinion, add value.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#130
Report 4 years ago
#130
(Original post by Comeback)
That is wonderful and all - our unelected head of state healing wounds abroad. But the fact they are unelected means if they chose not to/someone inherited the throne who didn't wish to heal wounds then no progress would ever be made.
I don't understand what you mean here.

We, the public, should have the chance to TRY to elect a government that heals wounds.
We do. It's called electing the House of Commons.

So what if our elected government fails to do so? We can kick them out and try again.
Precisely. We already elect our government. What point are you making?

Even if we elect a government that causes war or ruins relations, having an unelected figure runs the same risk.
How? Our monarch can only state in public what our elected government tells her to say. That's the point.

Your argument seems (do tell me if I'm wrong) to centre on the idea that the Monarchy we currently has works - and would work better (possibly) than a presidential figure. You may be right, but that is no reason to let them and their descendents represent you with a risk they may change or worsen.
Why not? If they mess up, it would be the work of moments in political terms to remove them and either place a new monarch on the throne or establish a republic in extremis. A president, however, would be impossible to remove on a fixed term, as they would always be able to hide behind the fact that they were directly and personally elected to do what they are doing. Our present system imposes a stronger control on the incumbent to remain ceremonial than an elected president.
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#131
Report 4 years ago
#131
(Original post by gladders)
Why not? If they mess up, it would be the work of moments in political terms to remove them and either place a new monarch on the throne or establish a republic in extremis. A president, however, would be impossible to remove on a fixed term, as they would always be able to hide behind the fact that they were directly and personally elected to do what they are doing. Our present system imposes a stronger control on the incumbent to remain ceremonial than an elected president.
I think the forced resignation of Nixon shows this isn't quite true.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#132
Report 4 years ago
#132
Because our beloved Queen is a figurehead and source of inspiration in difficult times, and more sympathetic to the public than any elected politician could hope to aspire to be. It would be a symbol of HM recognising the problems her people were facing. No Three Day Week at the Palace I presume? The PM, or your grandad for that matter, were nowhere near as wealthy as HM (unless I am mistaken?). Doing real jobs may also be a factor.
Read carefully what I am saying: Doing so would be flatly unconstitutional. I don’t care if you think it would give you warm fuzzies: The Queen is not allowed to do such a thing. I would not want a ceremonial president doing such a thing, either.

But the Queen is loved worldwide right? Why would jihadists want to attack a country with Lizzie Windsor in it?
Because our elected government apparently pee’d them off?

If politicians are so disastrous for PR that the Royals make no difference (and note Prince Andrew's recent scandals in the US working the opposite way), what is the point of using them as a PR tool?
Sorry, I think you are attempting to make me defend a position I never took. Try again.

So if he married her and stayed King they'd have done what?
1) Baldwin’s government would have resigned. 2) The King would have to send for new Ministers. 3) No Ministers would have been forthcoming. 4) The King would be forced to dissolve Parliament and hold new elections. 4) The new Parliament would have been unrelentingly hostile to the King and unwilling to work with him. Again, no Ministers would be forthcoming for the King. 5) The King either abdicates or Parliament declares a republic.

Not if you set aside funds for people with sufficient popularity to run. In the age of the Internet this popularity wouldn't be difficult to build.
Oh, I would love for this to be true, believe me. But until it’s demonstrable with the existing elected offices we have, you’ll forgive me if I take your baseless claim with a huge pinch of salt.

Which is why you make it possible for particularly incompetent and/or otherwise unpopular figures to be removed from office ahead of re-election. Also, the Tory back-stabbing of Lady Thatcher shows that a party can do this themselves if they think the leader is harmful to their election prospects. Though for ceremonial positions where the President is supposed to be apolitical this does not apply.
Heads of State are meant to be officials extremely difficult to remove. Do you not think that an easily removable position would be entirely at the mercy of the Government to do exactly what they want, in the interests of the Party and not of the nation? That’s the point. So your assumption is not based on the general experience of states.

Police commissioner elections are comparable to elections for head of state, got it.
They are comparable in terms of being entirely purposeless and pointless.

It is part accusing republican views of being 'anti British', and part just overwhelmingly sycophantic coverage of the family. Take a glance at the Royal section of the Telegraph for instance:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily

Republicanism is usually shouted down as unpatriotic and opposed to British values, as any right-leaning media source is happy to state.
That’s part and parcel of having a press press, I’m afraid. The papers have the right, regrettably, to make their own claims, and the Guardian makes theirs. By your logic, I could legitimately argue that the French are duped into a conspiracy of republicanism by their papers not to restore their monarchy, which they obviously would do if the press told them ‘the truth’.

If his responsibilities stretch to shaking hands and eating Michelin star food then yes I do.
And for the umpteenth time I tell you that the tasks Queen of the United Kingdom and of the President of Germany are broadly equivalent. Your insistence that they are different is indicative of your wilful ignorance and bloody-mindedness.

Unless you can list for me the tasks the German president does that the Queen of the United Kingdom does not do?

At least he isn't treated as a God-like figure for carrying out these taxing jobs though.
That the Queen is hugely respected is down to her long reign, her political sensitivity, and her great personal charm and experience. She does a hard job very well. You are quite free to not respect her and to advocate a republic, and I will respect you for that. What I do not respect is your inability to treat monarchists with any respect that you believe you deserve. You refuse to acknowledge that a monarchist can be a monarchist with sincerity and in full grasp of the facts, and still come to a different opinion than you.

Germany is a country which doesn't quite have the same obsession with class that the UK does, which may be a contributing factor.
The class system would in no way disappear if we removed the monarchy. It was once something hinged upon the monarchy, but it no longer is.

Why does the role of head of state only function because of it being inherited?
Again, you are assigning to me a view I did not claim. I claimed that a ceremonial position functions if it is unelected. You’re the one claiming only election can work, which is patently false.

If only mainstream opinions are presented then it ensures the preservation of the status-quo. Opposing views not being given a platform prevents them from reaching the numbers needed to no longer be 'niche', although I'd argue 1 in 5 isn't that.
Flat Earth Society. Creationism. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your opinion being treated with respect by ordinary people if they choose not to. You can’t force it, and your constant whining on this point reveals you actually don’t respect the people all that much.

Why not ask the Guardian if it's hard for people to acquire such information. The government openly stated its opposition to publishing just a series of letters, and has since closed the loophole that allowed even that. The British establishment does not want people publicising things against the monarchy's interests.
If this was the case, the Guardian newspaper would have been shut down years ago, and the Internet would not be free.

A public that has been given a one-sided impression of the monarchy by the press which ties it in with British identity and patriotism.
And an equally stupid argument would be to claim the US and France are under a conspiracy by their papers to be republics. You’re not persuading anyone here but sounding like a whiner.

Still, Dennis Skinner's annual bashing of Black Rod doesn't do him harm in his constituency.
Heh, his little comments have actually become an institution in their own right! I like them. What you fail to appreciate is that the State Opening of Parliament is in its fundamentals a republican ceremony, as it shows the Commons warily cautious about the Crown and only willing to listen on sufferance. Skinner’s comments are precisely in that spirit and when he retires I hope someone else will carry them on.

I would in fact argue that what you're saying applies exactly to the monarchist argument, which is based on sentiment first and rationality second.
Piss off.

Lazy arguments of them being good for tourism, 'President Blair', them not really having any power anyway, only costing £40m and so on. The idea that a commoner is not fit to rule shows a lack of imagination, not the other way round.
None of which arguments I have ascribed, and your arguments are the same typical, emotional ones I always here. It’s getting boring.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#133
Report 4 years ago
#133
(Original post by Midlander)
I think the forced resignation of Nixon shows this isn't quite true.
Extreme scandals like those, yes. But incidences of a ceremonial president that got involved where he oughtn't would be harder.

And a monarch who got caught doing what Nixon did would have gone even sooner!
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#134
Report 4 years ago
#134
(Original post by Onde)
If Sinn Fein politicians are 'unable' to sit in the House of Commons because they are obliged to swear an oath to the Queen, isn't this unnecessarily damaging? (of course, if they were unwilling to swear an oath not involving the queen, this is a moot point).
SF politicians are 'unable' to sit in the House of Commons because of the Oath, but then, they still wouldn't sit in the House if the Oath was gone - the fundamentally object to Northern Ireland being part of the UK, and wouldn't sit regardless.

Having a monarchy doesn't mean we need to have a parliamentary Oath anyway, although I personally prefer it to a hazy muddled one about 'the people'.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#135
Report 4 years ago
#135
(Original post by Onde)
Not really. The Prime Minister doesn't get his title and associated properties by right of conquest + right of birth.
All property is through conquest and right of birth, so I do not understand why the monarchy personally is condemned for this.

The PM is also not absolved from inheritance tax, unlike the monarchy. The heir of the monarch never pays inheritance tax on any of the properties the previous monarch owned.
As I said, the monarch never dies, and no member of the Royal Family is permitted to engage in activities of profit, so they are unable to make good the losses from inheritance. They are not taxed because they cannot aggrandise.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#136
Report 4 years ago
#136
(Original post by Midlander)
I'd say it's also damaging that the Windsors cannot be criticised in the Commons.
They can be criticised if the monarch is advised by the Government to consent to such a debate, which a constitutional monarch is bound to agree to.

But really, while the Royal Family is barred from speaking out on their own, I think such debates are unecessary. Nothing stops the press from saying what they place though, and despite your insistence, we have a free press which does just that.
0
reply
OllieGidman
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#137
Report 4 years ago
#137
I'm strongly in favour of our monarchy, they bring in millions upon millions into the economy, they represent the traditional values of the country, are a tourist attraction bringing people in to bring in more money and they are generally great people with most having served in our great armed forces


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
chapmaed
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#138
Report 4 years ago
#138
I know this has been covered, but we actually make a direct profit from the monarchy. King George iii exchanged all the profits from the land owned by monarchy for a fixed salary provided by the government. As of today all monarchs have agreed to this deal. The salary is roughly £40 million but the profits from the lands are roughly £200 million. But the monarchy technically still owns the land, therefore losing the monarchy cuts a £160 million loss per year. Secondly I can't bear the thought of having David Cameron as our head of state - he's so slimy.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#139
Report 4 years ago
#139
so much would be lost if the Monarchy were to disappear....

bees would have to produce Jelly

golfers would have to play at the And Ancient Club

people would have to live in Tunbridge Wells

the French political lady would just be known as Ségolène

authors would only receive ties

the paint color (#002366) would just be blue
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#140
Report 4 years ago
#140
(Original post by gladders)
Extreme scandals like those, yes. But incidences of a ceremonial president that got involved where he oughtn't would be harder.

And a monarch who got caught doing what Nixon did would have gone even sooner!
Germany's President Wulff?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (58)
66.67%
No I haven't decided yet (19)
21.84%
Yes but I might change my mind (10)
11.49%

Watched Threads

View All