Turn on thread page Beta

Her Majesty the Queen watch

Announcements
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Lefties in this thread are clearly just envious because they can't be mates with the Royals. :laugh: I'm not even going to bother with ‘debating’ this issue because it would be totally pointless, just like the last time…

    The amount of work she's done for the country is much more than you ever will with that attitude. She and many other members of the Royal Family have busy working schedules usually involving what is essentially diplomacy. Although they hold little executive power, they represent this country much better than the ‘democratically elected’ Commons. They attend formal occasions including sporting events or fundraisers that benefit other people, award and present honours, decorations and medals to people for their life-long service to the country (something you'll also never receive, by the way), and fulfil many other duties.

    I realise that to people like you who were unfortunately born and raised in ****ty conditions, this must seem like the greatest injustice ever but I must once more stress that people are certainly not born equal and the sooner you get it out of your disillusioned brains, the better. Some are born into rich families, others into poor ones, some are fast and strong, others crippled since birth, some are beautiful and charming, others are tumblr feminists with pink hair, some have brilliant minds, others are tumblr feminists with pink hair, … some are royals, others are plebs. Is this really the biggest issue of our society?

    I agree that with little power, they may seem a bit unnecessary and I also agree that it's an issue – the Monarchy should be much more powerful and hold executive powers over the Commons. I would gladly exchange my suffrage for the rule of Elizabeth II or the Prince of Wales.



    What an excellent argument… :rolleyes:

    What if the Monarchy was a private company? The House of Windsor obtained the throne from a lineage of noblemen who ruled and fought for the country in one form or another. Unfortunately, the times have changed and they've surrendered much of their power but I don't think there's any substantial difference to private ownership. Their ‘superiority’ is essentially the same as that of a rich kid – would you like to seize every death person's assets and redistribute the wealth among all commoners? Oh, I know you would…
    Personally I read this post whilst playing this in the background



    edit: I wouldn't necessarily endorse the part about increasing their personal powers or anything after that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    You don't realise how regularly it's needed, then. Trust me, if it were so obvious, then plenty of countries would be doing that.

    As it stands, there are republics that do worse: there's a whole wing of Versailles that is permanently closed to the public for the rare occasions that the French Parliament gathers there purely to proclaim a new president.



    She doesn't. All that money goes directly into building maintenance, payment of staff salaries and benefits, and funding incoming state visits. The cost would remain under a republic.
    One large room for reasonably regular conferences, a wing closed off a couple of times a year for state visits, and the art collections/archives etc. that are not on display open to the public on an appointment-only basis. Rest open for paying visitors all year, with guided tours etc. Sorted.

    Building maintenance would be largely paid for by visitor ticket sales, and perhaps special events held within the building or the grounds, staff costs would be much reduced as there would unfortunately be fewer staff, and funding for incoming state visits would have to stay as it is because fortunately they're not exactly every other week.

    And where did the Queen get her £330million of personal funds according to the Sunday Times Rich List, then?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Dictator)
    I'm a republican, but a very idealistic one. For the most part I am indifferent to whether we have a monarchy or a republic. I would only support a republic if I was dictator of it. Otherwise the loony lefties would take over. I would have little problem crowning myself as a monarch though, as Napoleon did.
    So not a republican then?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    We oppose many things on principle, such a socialism and republicanism.
    Those are concepts, not things. I meant 'things' as in the monarchy, the House of Lords etc.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    It's silly to claim she gets none of that however.
    Well, the accounts are available to be perused, so feel free to find and proclaim what money of it she gets.

    I mean, sure, she benefits from it in that, at a function, she gets to eat and drink. She benefits in that, in Buck House, she gets a bed to sleep in and a roof over her head. Sure.

    But that's the same way in which Cameron benefits from living in Downing Street, or Obama in the White House.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    So not a republican then?
    I am...just, mainly because of my admiration for Cromwell and philosophical issues with monarchism. But I hate democracy so I'm not bothered about the "undemocratic" nature of the monarchy. It's hard to be one though, when you think about all the great monarchies out there destroyed by Communists/Islamists:

    Ethiopia
    Iran
    Brazil
    Etc
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Lefties in this thread are clearly just envious because they can't be mates with the Royals. :laugh:
    Eh, I wouldn't want to be, but my distaste for the monarchy isn't because I'm envious, it's because I think the circumstances of ones birth should not make them what they are; we should strive for a meritocracy, where those who put the work in can take themselves as high as they want, not rope off a major role for one family.


    What an excellent argument… :rolleyes:
    Arguing that superiority by blood is a ridiculous concept is like arguing that Paris is in France - unnecessary, it should be self evident. But, go on then - explain why being born to specific set of parents makes someone inherently superior.

    What if the Monarchy was a private company? The House of Windsor obtained the throne from a lineage of noblemen who ruled and fought for the country in one form or another. Unfortunately, the times have changed and they've surrendered much of their power but I don't think there's any substantial difference to private ownership. Their ‘superiority’ is essentially the same as that of a rich kid – would you like to seize every death person's assets and redistribute the wealth among all commoners? Oh, I know you would…
    Why what if? I'd still disagree with it because I'm of the opinion that we should all be able to rise as high as we want with the right application, and a monarchy flies in the face of that.

    Eh, no. I'd agree with redistribution of some wealth but if people have earnt their wealth it's theirs to do what they want with it, if that means leave it to their family then fair enough, but I'd definitely argue that political power should not be a matter of inheritance.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    One large room for reasonably regular conferences, a wing closed off a couple of times a year for state visits, and the art collections/archives etc. that are not on display open to the public on an appointment-only basis. Rest open for paying visitors all year, with guided tours etc. Sorted.
    Not really. You can't determine what size of function will be taking place, and at big functions for visiting VIPs, all the rooms will be used simultaneously.

    Much of the art collection is not on display, sure, but that's because it's in storage, much like how the British Museum doesn't have everything on display. It simply doesn't have the space.

    Building maintenance would be largely paid for by visitor ticket sales, and perhaps special events held within the building or the grounds, staff costs would be much reduced as there would unfortunately be fewer staff, and funding for incoming state visits would have to stay as it is because fortunately they're not exactly every other week.
    Well, I'm glad you know better than the many advisors of Parliament, the Treasury, and the Queen...why don't you write them a letter with all your bright ideas?

    And where did the Queen get her £330million of personal funds according to the Sunday Times Rich List, then?
    Personal investment portfolios that have been in existence for centuries.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Dictator)
    I am...just, mainly because of my admiration for Cromwell and philosophical issues with monarchism. But I hate democracy so I'm not bothered about the "undemocratic" nature of the monarchy. It's hard to be one though, when you think about all the great monarchies out there destroyed by Communists/Islamists:

    Ethiopia
    Iran
    Brazil
    Etc
    Who destroyed Brazil?

    A person who hates democracy cant be a republican.
    (Original post by Definition of a republic)
    A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    Who destroyed Brazil?

    A person who hates democracy cant be a republican.
    Says who?

    And being elected doesn't mean democracy. Democracy is mob rule. Only educated elites should get to vote.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Dictator)
    Says who?

    And being elected doesn't mean democracy. Democracy is mob rule. Only educated elites should get to vote.
    I got that one from google but I could source more saying more or less the same thing.

    'by the people' can't count excluding the vast majority of the people.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by United1892)
    I got that one from google but I could source more saying more or less the same thing.

    'by the people' can't count excluding the vast majority of the people.
    Of course it can, "by the people" gives no indication of what proportion of the entirety of the population, merely that is not a dictatorship.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    I got that one from google but I could source more saying more or less the same thing.

    'by the people' can't count excluding the vast majority of the people.
    Yes, like those famous Roman republicans Brutus and Cato etc. You know, how they spent all their time campaigning for a legislative chamber constituted by universal suffrage?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Of course it can, "by the people" gives no indication of what proportion of the entirety of the population, merely that is not a dictatorship.
    I'd suggest it heavily infers all the people. Unless we're going to have non elites as sub human scum.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Yes, like those famous Roman republicans Brutus and Cato etc. You know, how they spent all their time campaigning for a legislative chamber constituted by universal suffrage?
    Yeah 2000 years ago.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    I should point out that persecuting jews is not 'very little' wrong and I would not have supported them.
    You're twisting my words. What I said was that the British public had very little reason to think ill of the Nazis at this point. You reference the persecution of the Jews. What 'persecution' are you referring to at this point exactly? Crystal Night happened five years later, if you need some perspective. Additionally, the unpleasantness that was going on was made scarce to Britain by the phenomenal Nazi PR machine and the matter of natural distance and separation in a slower, more isolated, internetless world. Hitler was known for breathing new life into Germany at this point and for flattering Britain with endless sickly compliments and little else. To say so confidently that you would have opposed them at this stage is at best ridiculously naive and at worst an active attempt to provide an unrealistic frame of reference to make the young Elizabeth and her family seem unusually pro-Nazi, in a crass, dishonest attempt to taint a political institution you dislike.

    Her parent, the King, yes the King told her to do that. The monarchy is more than little old Lizzie you know.
    As above.

    Incidentally, it was not her parent or the King who influenced her here, it was her uncle, who was then still Prince Edward. You've very effectively demonstrated in just a few sentences just how little you know about this image, the monarchy or history in general.

    I wasn't trying to argue my cause however, the thread asked us to pay tribute to the Queen, my post does that in a way.
    It was a transparent attempt to attack the monarchy by cynical and opportunistic means that belong in tabloid newspapers and not in any self-respecting forum of debate.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    Yeah 2000 years ago.
    Ancient republics > Modern republics
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    Yeah 2000 years ago.
    Yes, in the system on which we base our usage of the term 'republic'. Look up the etymology of the word.

    You can argue that a republic by something other than majority rule would be bad if you like, but arguing by google definition is stupid.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordLoss210)
    Ten thousand years ago her ancestors ruled the world?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yeah, sounds about right
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Not really. You can't determine what size of function will be taking place, and at big functions for visiting VIPs, all the rooms will be used simultaneously.
    If it isn't possible to work out how big a function being held is, then perhaps the people responsible for holding the function should be replaced, and I can't imagine that an event taking up every single room in a gigantic building like Buckingham Palace for example is going to be held regularly enough to justify closing it permanently.

    (Original post by gladders)

    Much of the art collection is not on display, sure, but that's because it's in storage, much like how the British Museum doesn't have everything on display. It simply doesn't have the space.
    Exactly, so is there a reason why it couldn't stay in storage if the National Trust took over the royal residences?

    (Original post by gladders)

    Well, I'm glad you know better than the many advisors of Parliament, the Treasury, and the Queen...why don't you write them a letter with all your bright ideas?
    You can't think of an intelligent response so you respond with a sneer. Good job.


    (Original post by gladders)


    Personal investment portfolios that have been in existence for centuries.
    So, indirectly from ordinary people, ie taxpayers, then, through the companies that she has invested in.
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?

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.