The Student Room Group

What does good does the Monarchy really do ?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by gladders
Firstly, that's not the same as what I was describing: of a Head of State getting politically involved

Secondly, all you're demonstrating is that it's no harder to remove a monarch than a president. I contend it's even easier, in real terms, anyway, as there's considerbly greater restriction on what they can get away with.


Well, a HoS doing something naughty that would warrant their removal is what I was going for. But the Nixon example holds and the position would very quickly become untenable. We have already seen just recently the government fighting hard to protect senior royals butting their noses in, and that is a result of the deference some people show to royalty simply because of them being royalty.
Original post by Midlander
The Crown Estate to which you refer is not the private property of the monarch but is run by 'the Crown', or the British state. I also suggest you revisit your estimate of the monarchy's cost considering it excludes the more substantial expenditures like security.


The Crown as a landowner is not discretely separate from the person of the monarch, nor is it entirely coterminous with the State as an entity. It's an unclarified position which would only ever be resolved if we made a definite move towards a republic.

I don't think it's as simple as being the Queen's entirely private property, but nor is it, as republicans tend to overstate, entirely that of the State's. I think in actuality some kind of compromise would be made with the outgoing monarchy if any fairness was observed.

And that's separate from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, which are undeniably the property of the Queen and Prince of Wales respectively.
Original post by Midlander
Well, a HoS doing something naughty that would warrant their removal is what I was going for. But the Nixon example holds and the position would very quickly become untenable. We have already seen just recently the government fighting hard to protect senior royals butting their noses in, and that is a result of the deference some people show to royalty simply because of them being royalty.


The monarch has the right to 'butt her nose in' as it conforms with the duties of the monarch as stated by Walter Bagehot is his famous book.
Original post by gladders
Because they have a right to? That they honestly believed there was a public interest in confidentiality?

Are you claiming that republicanism can only survive with those letters published?


The government has a right to cover up a future monarch meddling when he isn't supposed to? Since the royals supposedly don't have any 'real' influence anyway I don't see what the problem is.
Original post by gladders
The Crown as a landowner is not discretely separate from the person of the monarch, nor is it entirely coterminous with the State as an entity. It's an unclarified position which would only ever be resolved if we made a definite move towards a republic.

I don't think it's as simple as being the Queen's entirely private property, but nor is it, as republicans tend to overstate, entirely that of the State's. I think in actuality some kind of compromise would be made with the outgoing monarchy if any fairness was observed.

And that's separate from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, which are undeniably the property of the Queen and Prince of Wales respectively.


There would probably be some sort of settlement reached but I would be very, very surprised if the Treasury lost all of the revenue it currently receives from the Estate, as the poster suggested. The Duchies are Royal property indeed, having proudly been acquired centuries ago by booting peasants off the land and preventing them from coming back without charging.

Original post by gladders
The monarch has the right to 'butt her nose in' as it conforms with the duties of the monarch as stated by Walter Bagehot is his famous book.


So you're now saying that the monarch does have a right to interfere? How does the accident of birth qualify them for this more than a commoner?
Original post by Midlander
The government has a right to cover up a future monarch meddling when he isn't supposed to? Since the royals supposedly don't have any 'real' influence anyway I don't see what the problem is.


As I just said, the monarch has the right to say what she likes in private as it is part of her duties, to be informed, to encourage and to warn. What she cannot do is insist, which would cause a constitutional crisis. She can only do this, however, in confidence. She would be unable to air her opinions in public, as it would end her impartiality.

This extends to the Prince of Wales too, in a limited extent, as the heir to the throne, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that new expectations are insisting on his interactions being more discreet.
Original post by Midlander
There would probably be some sort of settlement reached but I would be very, very surprised if the Treasury lost all of the revenue it currently receives from the Estate, as the poster suggested. The Duchies are Royal property indeed, having proudly been acquired centuries ago by booting peasants off the land and preventing them from coming back without charging.


Just like anybody else who owns property then. You realise the wealth you enjoy as a Brit is thanks to centuries of Empire?

So you're now saying that the monarch does have a right to interfere? How does the accident of birth qualify them for this more than a commoner?


Because the Queen's been on the throne for sixty years and has plenty of experience that the Government can draw upon. She's considerably more suitable than a President who's been around for only a few years and has only won a popularity contest.
They're celebrities and a tourist attraction.
In terms if power, they're pretty much useless, compared to olden days( Tudors for example) and are pretty much the government puppets.
Their job is to stand tall ,look pretty and be respected and almost worshipped.
If they were entirely uses less, then the country would be like the French Revolution.
Original post by joyce-diana
They're celebrities and a tourist attraction.
In terms if power, they're pretty much useless, compared to olden days( Tudors for example) and are pretty much the government puppets.
Their job is to stand tall ,look pretty and be respected and almost worshipped.
If they were entirely uses less, then the country would be like the French Revolution.


They should be respected for being born and not doing anything?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Midlander
They should be respected for being born and not doing anything?


Posted from TSR Mobile

Unfortunately, yes. That's what the law tells us to do.
i don't give a **** about them either way. They don't have much power, and i'm not one for tradition but will make an exception. the monarchy has shaped us as a country, so why not keep them?
Original post by Midlander
They should be respected for being born and not doing anything?


Haha :smile: look, Midlander, buddy, at first I thought your claim of this sort was due to an innocent lack of knowledge on your part. But now I am beginning to suspect you're so wantonly convinced of your own point of view that you reject all facts that are inconvenient to it.

I repeat my earlier challenge to you: list what the President of Germany does that the Queen does not. Then we can guage just how the Queen 'does nothing'.

If you don't offer anything, there's only one thing we can conclude about you.
Original post by gladders
Haha :smile: look, Midlander, buddy, at first I thought your claim of this sort was due to an innocent lack of knowledge on your part. But now I am beginning to suspect you're so wantonly convinced of your own point of view that you reject all facts that are inconvenient to it.

I repeat my earlier challenge to you: list what the President of Germany does that the Queen does not. Then we can guage just how the Queen 'does nothing'.

If you don't offer anything, there's only one thing we can conclude about you.


That was not your challenge. You asked me if I thought the German President's job was a doss and then you would talk about how easy/difficult the Queen's job. I did my end of the bargain ages ago!




Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 153
Avatar for Reue
Reue
20


Lets just be done with them.
Original post by Midlander
That was not your challenge. You asked me if I thought the German President's job was a doss and then you would talk about how easy/difficult the Queen's job. I did my end of the bargain ages ago!

Actually, in a few posts back I made clear that you need to defend your claim first. You haven't.

You have to address a fundamental flaw in your blinkered view: if the Queen does 'nothing', as you put it, then the German President does 'nothing' as well. So you have to answer this: if the German President does 'nothing', why has Germany, and countless other republics, deliberately and knowingly created a ceremonial presidency?

Clearly it must be of value and use, otherwise nobody would have one - right?

Right?

I'm happy to elaborate on the functions of the monarchy, but you have to make some things clear about your assumptions, so I can understand precisely what kind of double-standards you'll be insisting upon.
Didnt the royal wedding apparently cost the UK economy aboot 5 billion pounds?

yes. Totally worth it. :rolleyes:

And anyone who thinks having the royal family is still democratic then they are a delusional fool.

A poll before the scottish referendum showed that 63% of voters called for a ballot on scotlands next head of state.

Only 22% believe that the royals should have been retained without question.
Original post by gladders
Actually, in a few posts back I made clear that you need to defend your claim first. You haven't.

You have to address a fundamental flaw in your blinkered view: if the Queen does 'nothing', as you put it, then the German President does 'nothing' as well. So you have to answer this: if the German President does 'nothing', why has Germany, and countless other republics, deliberately and knowingly created a ceremonial presidency?

Clearly it must be of value and use, otherwise nobody would have one - right?

Right?

I'm happy to elaborate on the functions of the monarchy, but you have to make some things clear about your assumptions, so I can understand precisely what kind of double-standards you'll be insisting upon.


Ceremonial positions, where one's responsibilities extend to cutting ribbons, shaking hands, eating banquets and reading pre-prepared speeches, are as easy as they come. Part of the job description is that you cannot interfere with the running of the country so you would have to go out of your way to mess up (like Wulff did). Little risk, little toil for a very high reward in the case of the life long monarch and their family. The elected ceremonial leader has a cushy term until the post is up for re-election, and they are not idolised by the media for life and nor are their family.

The appeal for some is that, well, they just like having these positions for symbolic reasons rather than functional ones. I await your next attempt to move the goalposts.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Zander01
Didnt the royal wedding apparently cost the UK economy aboot 5 billion pounds?

yes. Totally worth it. :rolleyes:

And anyone who thinks having the royal family is still democratic then they are a delusional fool.

A poll before the scottish referendum showed that 63% of voters called for a ballot on scotlands next head of state.

Only 22% believe that the royals should have been retained without question.


David Cameron told the nation to have 'the mother of all parties' though, sod the economy.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Realistically, nothing, other than acting as public funded celebrities
Original post by Onde
Nothing personal about it, it is the institution of monarchy I am criticising. Our PM is at least indirectly voted for as a person.


Whoopedy-do for the PM. He's elected as he wields executive power. There is not, and there never has been, any kind of imperative for a ceremonial position to be elected.

Are you somebody who thinks her majesty should be given her own private yacht?


She's not. She's also the only G20 Head of State without her own personal plane.

Mere precedents. The Queen pays income tax, council tax, VAT, capital gains etc. We don't determine the law based on how things were in 1200 or 1918.


Of course not, but we frame the law based on practicalities. If the monarchy is forbidden to aggrandise itself, then it's fair that it is exempt from a tax that would ruin it and make it dependent on the Government.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you