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 baseballfan2010)
    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.
    im guessing you talk to younger people though, remeber almost all royal suport is from older generations, can't really imagine a group of 20yr olds or younger going "yo guys sweet royal wedding party round mine this friday, so stoked for this, such a sick couple"
    the same with religion, as you grow older your views on stuff changes, one day a lot of our generation will be more religious, more right wing, and into things like the monarchy
    and that headline was for the 2010 world cup draw this year, and wasn't a joke
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caspa)
    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
    As I said, it's a method of encouraging esprit de corps in the army by giving them patrons. I can't comment on his A-Levels, but Cambridge has a reputation for being unfair to those of lower classes, which is a valid criticim.

    there you go most building at unique and beautiful, its nothing to do with religion most people don't have a clue about that
    And you can't compare it with drab, unoriginal Buckingham Palace.

    its not really exaggerate, more less every weekend is spent away from london, easter, summer and xmas as well
    You mean...like most people?

    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
    This wouldn't happen in the UK. Simply having an elected second chamber would not give us a system like America's - more likely it would be like Italy's. In Italy, both Chambers almost always have the same party in a majority and so the second chamber becomes superfluous. Moreover costs of the second chamber would skyrocket, and you'd lose the high level of expertise and qualifications the majority of current lords have in favour of something markedly inferior to the Commons.

    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
    I've already listed reasons why the presidentialist system is seriously flawed - it makes democratic breakdown more likely as it leads to intense frustration among politicians and people that nothing gets down. The parliamentary system works better as it encourages consensus and shares power in a more realistic way.

    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
    The PM meets executive heads of state/government mainly for business reasons, negotiating treaties and issues and so on.

    Being a partial head of state does not make you a check on government - it makes you the government. Politicising the head of state simply devalues their ability to represent the whole country. We already have plenty of checks and balances which work different from America's but still do the job.

    election are the way forward, how can anyone support someone by the luck of birth is seen as better than everyone
    You really need to read up on the effects election can have on institutions - it's not all roses and candy.

    inheritance means you can end up with some fool and you can't remove them until they died
    Not so - a particularly bad one can be ejected by Parliament at any time. But for the past two centuries or so most have been sufficiently competent that there's been no need.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f00ddude)
    and that headline was for the 2010 world cup draw this year, and wasn't a joke
    Actually it was a joke, an old reference to a Harvard v. Yale game:
    http://gnnr.tumblr.com/post/69699621...e-really-meant

    It was a reference to that and it captured the feeling that the U.S. team is good but not as good as some others, so a tie felt as good as a win.

    It is funny how many people took it seriously. At least it made some Brits feel better about themselves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by baseballfan2010)
    Actually it was a joke, an old reference to a Harvard v. Yale game:
    http://gnnr.tumblr.com/post/69699621...e-really-meant

    It was a reference to that and it captured the feeling that the U.S. team is good but not as good as some others, so a tie felt as good as a win.

    It is funny how many people took it seriously
    . At least it made some Brits feel better about themselves.
    thats like me saying "ive got cancer and 3 days to live" to someone then laughing that they dont realise its an in joke i have with my mate or something
    and in all honesty, i doubt americans are smart enough to make the connection either, a headline that needs explaining like that simply isnt a good headline
    tbh im guessing they realised it came across as stupid then tried to justify it and came across that old game
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    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.
    I just think the principle of a hereditary position as head of state is wrong. We should be able to choose our head of state based on individual merits and if we get it wrong and elect an idiot we have ourselves to blame.
    Nor do I think we should fork out to pay for the royal family's lifestyle. If there's a wedding, or a Christmas party, or a butler that the royals want, it should not be our tax money that pays for it. There was outcry when our representatives in parliament wasted our money unnecessarily, why should we allow the representatives of or state to do so?
    Those are my views anyway. I probably sound like a raving idiot :P
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unvincibledudeman)
    I just think the principle of a hereditary position as head of state is wrong. We should be able to choose our head of state based on individual merits and if we get it wrong and elect an idiot we have ourselves to blame.
    That's your prerogative to feel that way, of course; but then we'd unlikely elect them under a presidency anyway. I can be pretty certain we'd go for the Italian/German system in which the Parliament chooses the President.

    Nor do I think we should fork out to pay for the royal family's lifestyle. If there's a wedding, or a Christmas party, or a butler that the royals want, it should not be our tax money that pays for it. There was outcry when our representatives in parliament wasted our money unnecessarily, why should we allow the representatives of or state to do so?
    Well mainly, we do not pay for their lifestyle.

    What we pay for is very specifically the costs of the office of Head of State - that means the administrative costs for the work of the Queen in that capacity, and any official receptions etc that she must hold in order to represent the UK at home and abroad.

    Any personal jollies that the royals go on for their own amusement come from their own, personal, wealth - which receives no taxpayer support.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)


    Well mainly, we do not pay for their lifestyle.

    What we pay for is very specifically the costs of the office of Head of State - that means the administrative costs for the work of the Queen in that capacity, and any official receptions etc that she must hold in order to represent the UK at home and abroad.

    Any personal jollies that the royals go on for their own amusement come from their own, personal, wealth - which receives no taxpayer support.
    Well in that case that's fair enough.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Off with their heads!!!Revolution!!!!


    But seriously, the royal family is like a monument, you wouldn't like the Big Ben or the London eye to be taken down would you?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Better to have a Monarchy which is neutral with no power, than an elected president who would be biased and hold Political Influence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The monarchy is of huge benefit to our tourism industry, and has a lot to offer to our national identity. Also, if you work out the average of what the monarchy costs each taxpayer per year it comes out remarkably low - I think I read it's only around £1.70 each? Correct me if i'm wrong though

    Edit: I also think we need someone to carry out the ceremonial functions of head of state - one of the USA's biggest weaknesses as far as i'm concened!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f00ddude)
    thats like me saying "ive got cancer and 3 days to live" to someone then laughing that they dont realise its an in joke i have with my mate or something
    and in all honesty, i doubt americans are smart enough to make the connection either, a headline that needs explaining like that simply isnt a good headline
    tbh im guessing they realised it came across as stupid then tried to justify it and came across that old game
    Or it was a joke that you just didn't get.

    Sure, most Americans don't care about soccer, but we're not stupid.

    And, amazingly, Americans are capable of humor, even if you just don't get it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by baseballfan2010)
    Or it was a joke that you just didn't get.

    Sure, most Americans don't care about soccer, but we're not stupid.

    And, amazingly, Americans are capable of humor, even if you just don't get it.
    somehow i doubt it, how many americans are really guna get that joke?
    it would be like the telegraph basing a headline on the suns 1992 election headline, was a massive thing at the time, but people forget and younger generations who dont do politics just wouldnt get it, therefore rendering it a stupid idea
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If we lost the monarchy yes... we would lose tourism. Because we live here it's not as big a deal, I have family in America who are fascinated by the Royal Family and hear about some of the good things they do for charity and such. I've asked if they'd still be interested if we didn't have a Royal Family and they said along the lines of they still would, but it'd lose it's initiate attraction.

    I don't know about you, but I highly doubt people come to Britain to see Buckingham Palace when they could go to Russia and see the Winter Palace or go to Paris and see the Eiffel Tower. The Monarchy does generate a lot in tourism, other places do well with tourism without one because they actually have a lot more culture and monuments then we have. I don't see alton towers being a massive tourist attractive compared to Disneyworlds, people come to see the monarchy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pitch)
    Would you vote for monarchy or republic?Why are we paying millions every year to Charles and relatives?
    We pay more to Europe...and their MP's are worse than ours for stealing cash!
    I'd rather get out of europe tbh.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AshleyT)
    We pay more to Europe...and their MP's are worse than ours for stealing cash!
    I'd rather get out of europe tbh.
    and lose all the trade benefits?! yeh it costs us tax payers money and we get a F-load of unskilled immigrants, but due to the free trade it injects a lot into our economy, farmers and manafactureres benefit hugely, as well as the general public when buying eu goods
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    whats wrong with the queen

    im irish and so love the republic but still wish your royal family hadnt banished our monarchies hundreds of years ago lol but you guys who are english and should be proud of the monarchy they are a symbol of your country.

    saying that they are terribly expensive so out with the metaphorical guillotine
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f00ddude)
    somehow i doubt it, how many americans are really guna get that joke?
    it would be like the telegraph basing a headline on the suns 1992 election headline, was a massive thing at the time, but people forget and younger generations who dont do politics just wouldnt get it, therefore rendering it a stupid idea
    Still a joke, though. I think most Americans know that 1-1 is a tie. I assume most either knew it was a joke or thought maybe the editors were that stupid. To think or say that all Americans are dumb based on that headline is an assumption, and an incorrect one.

    I think part of the reason was that America was an underdog, so a tie kind of felt like a win. It was more of a feeling of "well we didn't lose." So while it was a reference to that old game, it was also a reference to the feeling of the Americans who watched that World Cup.

    I don't get British humor most of the time, but I still don't take it seriously.

    I can understand thinking that it's a stupid joke. However, to assume that all Americans think that a 1-1 tie is a win based on that headline is ridiculous, and probably just a way for people to laugh at "stupid Americans."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f00ddude)
    and lose all the trade benefits?! yeh it costs us tax payers money and we get a F-load of unskilled immigrants, but due to the free trade it injects a lot into our economy, farmers and manafactureres benefit hugely, as well as the general public when buying eu goods
    We pay a large amount of farmers NOT to farm anyway. Our agricultural system is ****ed anyway because it's cheaper to import.

    We could still trade with Europe - we're the same distance whether in Europe or not.

    I know there's lots of benefits Europe brings...but at the moment is just feel that the disadvantages far outstrip the advantages.

    And the UK is being taken for mugs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AshleyT)
    We pay a large amount of farmers NOT to farm anyway. Our agricultural system is ****ed anyway because it's cheaper to import.

    We could still trade with Europe - we're the same distance whether in Europe or not.

    I know there's lots of benefits Europe brings...but at the moment is just feel that the disadvantages far outstrip the advantages.

    And the UK is being taken for mugs.
    we wouldnt get free trade though, for non eu countries trading into the eu there are quite large import taxes, and in return any EU products shiped here would rise in price
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's a bit of a non-issue tbh, and it'd probably be too much hassle to implement a republic. Leave it be for now I reckon.
 
 
 
  • 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.