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 gladders)
    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.
    These are your words.The Queen can dismiss an elected government.We don't know if the next one won't do it
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    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.
    I assume you are referring to the US. Well in case you haven't noticed, the US is a constitutionally unwell country. They have no democratic means of resolving institutional disputes and instead policy problems remain unsolved running sores.

    The scholar Juan Linz has demonstrated that presidential states have a higher risk of nondemocratic takeovers than parliamentary states, for just this reason.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    These are your words.The Queen can dismiss an elected government.We don't know if the next one won't do it
    Seeing as no monarch has done this since William IV in 1834, when the country wasn't even democratic, I think it's a safe bet it will never happen, because they know perfectly well what the consequence of this would be.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Prove it.
    It's obvious.Republics presidents and their relatives can't afford sports cars or boats.And even if the costs were the same, why should we pay always for the same dukes and princes?Who do they think they are?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    It's obvious.Republics presidents and their relatives can't afford sports cars or boats.
    You have got to be kidding me. Where have you got the idea that republican presidents can't afford sports cars or boats? You can't afford one on $200,000? Or €240,000, which is the salary of the French President?

    The Queen, however, gets no salary.

    And even if the costs were the same, why should we pay always for the same dukes and princes?Who do they think they are?
    Dukes and princes do not get paid.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Seeing as no monarch has done this since William IV in 1834, when the country wasn't even democratic, I think it's a safe bet it will never happen, because they know perfectly well what the consequence of this would be.
    still no sure.We are not a democracy because nobody voted the Queen and nobody will vote Charles when he'll be king
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    You have got to be kidding me. Where have you got the idea that republican presidents can't afford sports cars or boats? You can't afford one on $200,000? Or €240,000, which is the salary of the French President?

    The Queen, however, gets no salary.



    Dukes and princes do not get paid.
    they do.This is why they're rich.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    they do.This is why they're rich.
    They are rich because they gained wealth through other means, such as land ownership and investment. Not a drop of tax money is received by them.

    You haven't produced a shred of evidence to prove your argument.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    still no sure.We are not a democracy because nobody voted the Queen and nobody will vote Charles when he'll be king
    Nobody voted for the Union Jack to be our flag, either, or for the fact that we drive on the left hand side rather than the right. Should we vote on them too?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    still no sure.We are not a democracy because nobody voted the Queen and nobody will vote Charles when he'll be king
    no-one votes for the House of Lords, no-one votes for the European Commission. In the U.S, no-one votes for the Supreme Court, arguably the most powerful judicial body in the world. Comapred to those, the monarchy does nothing. Just because the monarchy isn't elected doesn't mean that in a Republic, everything is elected.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Nobody voted for the Union Jack to be our flag, either, or for the fact that we drive on the left hand side rather than the right. Should we vote on them too?
    if you don't want a democracy it's your opinion.However other people should have the right to vote for another president if they don't want Charles.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pink pineapple)
    no-one votes for the House of Lords, no-one votes for the European Commission. In the U.S, no-one votes for the Supreme Court, arguably the most powerful judicial body in the world. Comapred to those, the monarchy does nothing. Just because the monarchy isn't elected doesn't mean that in a Republic, everything is elected.
    ok enjoy your new King Charles
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    if you don't want a democracy it's your opinion.However other people should have the right to vote for another president if they don't want Charles.
    We have a democracy. If we truly don't want the monarchy, it is entirely within our power to elect a political party to remove it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    ok enjoy your new King Charles
    Could you propose someone who you'd like as a president?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Not have the bottle to do what? To remove a monarch? Why not?

    Is it because *gasp* the monarchy is popular?

    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.
    Politicians at the top of the ladder adore royalty regardless of whether it's doing a good 'job' or not. As I've said-if the French president was truly corrupt he wouldn't be re-elected.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I assume you are referring to the US. Well in case you haven't noticed, the US is a constitutionally unwell country. They have no democratic means of resolving institutional disputes and instead policy problems remain unsolved running sores.

    The scholar Juan Linz has demonstrated that presidential states have a higher risk of nondemocratic takeovers than parliamentary states, for just this reason.
    Despite all of these troubles, the USA is, as I said, at the top of the pile. Good old King Barack I.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    It's such a minor issue/non-issue compared to the massive problems we have.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    Politicians at the top of the ladder adore royalty regardless of whether it's doing a good 'job' or not. As I've said-if the French president was truly corrupt he wouldn't be re-elected.
    Really. So there's some kind of conspiracy that only monarchists be elected. Well, I guess the entire electorate must be in on it as well. Damn, they failed to stop Tony Benn, or Norman Baker, Roy Hattersley, Ann McKechin or Stephen Pound. I guess they slipped through the net, eh?

    Honestly, this is ridiculous. A conspiracy to keep the monarchy in place? What's stopping me from switching that argument around and saying there's a conspiracy to stop France becoming a monarchy again - the people are being duped into voting for republican parties?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Don't try and win a unwinnerble argument. You're wrong.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    Despite all of these troubles, the USA is, as I said, at the top of the pile. Good old King Barack I.
    You don't think their enormous population, remoteness from significant enemies, and easy access to vast natural resources doesn't have anything to do with it?

    Imagine this was 1913, with Britain at the top. Could we then argue that monarchy is obviously better because, not only is Britain #1, but Germany is #2, also a monarchy?
 
 
 
  • 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.