What does good does the Monarchy really do ? Watch

Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#161
Report 4 years ago
#161
(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
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#162
Report 4 years ago
#162
(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
0
reply
RedStar98
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#163
Report 4 years ago
#163
Realistically, nothing, other than acting as public funded celebrities
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#164
Report 4 years ago
#164
(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.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#165
Report 4 years ago
#165
(Original post by Midlander)
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.
Oh, that's rich.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree that such things are easy. The royal family conducted 4,000 public engagements in 2014. That's on average eleven a day. So basically, every one of them has to be seen, to interact, to speak, and to look enthused, interested, be interesting and be happy and charming for a large chunk of every day.

Do you honestly believe that's easy? Do you have any real concept of how exhausting such work is? It's not parties, it's work. Real work, hard work, and it's necessary work.

Celebrities in general tend to have a high rate of mental and emotional stress that drives them to drink, drugs, violence and depression, and sometimes suicide. It's in part because of the enormous stress of being public figures.

I mean, Jesus, the Queen's father smoked and drank himself to death because of the stress and terror of the job.

As for their speeches, they are prepared by the Government, this is true, but you're mistaken if you believe that the royals simply take them and parrot what they are given without reading it. They have to make sure what they say is constitutional and not going to suggest criticism of particular groups. That's a delicate job.

Nor is that the end of their role, for either the German President or the British Queen. As I said, they consult with the government on what policies are going to be enacted, and can informally comment, make suggestions, and ask questions. They can also privately warn or encourage the government on the wisdom of a particular course if they feel it's wise or dangerous. But in both cases, the government can politely ignore them or take the advice on board, without any pressure.

Finally, they possess Prerogatives and powers which are exercised on the advice of the government. This, again, is normally routine, but the important point is that the use of powers which could, for example, give the government a built-in advantage over parliament must still be authorised by the Head of State, and they must ensure what they do does not prevent the democratic functioning of the State.

Easy job? My foot.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#166
Report 4 years ago
#166
(Original post by Onde)
a rather token standard.
What do you mean? You're trying to point-score about the Queen having a boat, which she doesn't, so I can't point-score back that she doesn't have a plane?

The law does not forbid the monarchy from aggrandising itself, as though being born into a hereditary position of power wasn't enough.[/QUOTE]

As I said, they are not permitted to do jobs for profit. I don't know what else to say to you, but if you want to deny what's already fact...*shrug*
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#167
Report 4 years ago
#167
(Original post by Reue)


Lets just be done with them.
Hey! Posting guillotines is what I came here to do
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#168
Report 4 years ago
#168
if you thought the queen was "doing a good job" (whatever that's even meant to mean), just think of the awful job "king" charles will do

1
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#169
Report 4 years ago
#169
(Original post by gladders)
Oh, that's rich.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree that such things are easy. The royal family conducted 4,000 public engagements in 2014. That's on average eleven a day. So basically, every one of them has to be seen, to interact, to speak, and to look enthused, interested, be interesting and be happy and charming for a large chunk of every day.

Do you honestly believe that's easy? Do you have any real concept of how exhausting such work is? It's not parties, it's work. Real work, hard work, and it's necessary work.

Celebrities in general tend to have a high rate of mental and emotional stress that drives them to drink, drugs, violence and depression, and sometimes suicide. It's in part because of the enormous stress of being public figures.

I mean, Jesus, the Queen's father smoked and drank himself to death because of the stress and terror of the job.

As for their speeches, they are prepared by the Government, this is true, but you're mistaken if you believe that the royals simply take them and parrot what they are given without reading it. They have to make sure what they say is constitutional and not going to suggest criticism of particular groups. That's a delicate job.

Nor is that the end of their role, for either the German President or the British Queen. As I said, they consult with the government on what policies are going to be enacted, and can informally comment, make suggestions, and ask questions. They can also privately warn or encourage the government on the wisdom of a particular course if they feel it's wise or dangerous. But in both cases, the government can politely ignore them or take the advice on board, without any pressure.

Finally, they possess Prerogatives and powers which are exercised on the advice of the government. This, again, is normally routine, but the important point is that the use of powers which could, for example, give the government a built-in advantage over parliament must still be authorised by the Head of State, and they must ensure what they do does not prevent the democratic functioning of the State.

Easy job? My foot.
More sycophantic nonsense. You talk about these engagements as though they're a chore, the actual physical activity extends to eating, shaking hands, chatting to people who are already in awe of you, and reading out drafted manuscripts. It is not challenging, it is not tiring and you get very well compensated for it in the form of a life of privilege and high status. Put it this way, would someone working 40 hours in an office on £7 an hour trade places with Her Majesty, or vice versa? I think we all know the answer.

Whilst the duties of ceremonial leaders the big differences lie in the length of the term and the status that comes with being royalty over an elected figure. We award these things based on nothing other than birth, using the crass assumption that a commoner is not fit for the job and is not fit to decide who should have it. Also, you and I both know that the PM will take the opinion of HM over that of Joe Bloggs-to award this level of influence because of ancestry again rests on the assumption that mere commoners are lesser than a Windsor.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#170
Report 4 years ago
#170
(Original post by Onde)
As I said, they are not permitted to do jobs for profit. I don't know what else to say to you, but if you want to deny what's already fact...*shrug*
I didn't say she had a boat, I said are you one of these people who think she should have her own private yacht (e.g. as Michael Gove proposed).[/quote]

You're now presuming to read my mind? I don't think the Queen should have a private yacht on the taxpayer's dime, so stop trying to pigeonhole me.

The law does not permit them from doing jobs for profit.
You're assuming that law is all there is to do with it. It's an ancient and firm convention, and any royal who wants to engage in business of profit has to ask the Queen, and in so doing, disconnects themselves permanently from any financial receipt or public duties on behalf of the Crown.

Do you believe that her majesty should be forbidden in future from voting
Why? She doesn't, and wouldn't. Why bother legislating against a non-issue?

and that Prince Charles should be forbidden from writing his infamous letters, by law?
I don't, actually, but I am able to acknowledge when public and judicial opinion does not concur, and I, unlike some here, respect their opinions.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#171
Report 4 years ago
#171
(Original post by Onde)
also, with this incident, the Queen Mother said this stress arose from Edward VIII's abdication: he was never intended to be king and so was never trained for the role. It was a situation of the monarchy's own making.
True, but it was also a job known to be hugely stressful and generally not fun. She never said the stress was entirely because of the abdication but it did have a significant contribution. He had done public functions as a royal before becoming King and had despised every moment of it. He had training and experience, but it was a galling job for him.

The whole deal with Edward VIII caused a constitutional crisis, which was hardly good for our country. If Edward had stayed king, the country's government would have dissolved itself. If you are keen on precedence, the monarch should have married whoever they wished, even it meant abolishing the Church of England.
Oh here we go, attempting to argue by assigning extreme views to me I never adopted. Argument by absurdity. A sure sign that you're desperate.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#172
Report 4 years ago
#172
(Original post by Onde)
Do you think it would be better then if we had someone who was willing to do the self-created job as well as being chosen by popular consent?
Self-created? Is the President of Germany a self-created job?

Why bother electing a ceremonial position? All that does is risk the incumbent getting involved in day-by-day politics, which is not what the office is meant to do.

We accept unelected officials in all sorts of other roles because it is not seen as essential or helpful to the position, and yet for some bizarre reason when it comes to the Head of State an arbitrary insistence on an imagined constistency is belted out.

George VI was born in 1895 and died at 56...in the UK, the average life expectancy for a man born in 1900 was apparently 47 years.
And his daughter, grandson, and father all lives considerably longer than him.
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#173
Report 4 years ago
#173
(Original post by gladders)
True, but it was also a job known to be hugely stressful and generally not fun. She never said the stress was entirely because of the abdication but it did have a significant contribution. He had done public functions as a royal before becoming King and had despised every moment of it. He had training and experience, but it was a galling job for him.
He could have abdicated.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#174
Report 4 years ago
#174
(Original post by Midlander)
More sycophantic nonsense. You talk about these engagements as though they're a chore, the actual physical activity extends to eating, shaking hands, chatting to people who are already in awe of you, and reading out drafted manuscripts. It is not challenging, it is not tiring and you get very well compensated for it in the form of a life of privilege and high status. Put it this way, would someone working 40 hours in an office on £7 an hour trade places with Her Majesty, or vice versa? I think we all know the answer.
Well, what can I say? I can only conclude you have absolutely no idea about work or real life. Despite your repeated, baseless assertions, it is hard work, and it's valuable work, and it can drive enormous stress.

You still haven't explained how it's easy work for both the monarch and the president, and yet somehow pointless for the monarch, and valuable for the president. You're inherently contradictory.

Whilst the duties of ceremonial leaders the big differences lie in the length of the term and the status that comes with being royalty over an elected figure.
How do these things affect the workload of the office? This is simply an unsupported assertion by you.

We award these things based on nothing other than birth, using the crass assumption that a commoner is not fit for the job and is not fit to decide who should have it.
You really don't read what's put before you, do you? No, we don't elect the position because doing so adds no value to the position and is not something that is essential, given that most other countries do not elect the position.

Also, you and I both know that the PM will take the opinion of HM over that of Joe Bloggs-to award this level of influence because of ancestry again rests on the assumption that mere commoners are lesser than a Windsor.
Oh please. You have absolutely no evidence that the PM somehow fawns over the Queen just because he has to speak to her once a week. And somehow you consider someone who won a popularity contest more legitimate to speak to the PM in such a way? Utterly surreal.
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#175
Report 4 years ago
#175
(Original post by gladders)
Self-created? Is the President of Germany a self-created job?

Why bother electing a ceremonial position? All that does is risk the incumbent getting involved in day-by-day politics, which is not what the office is meant to do.

We accept unelected officials in all sorts of other roles because it is not seen as essential or helpful to the position, and yet for some bizarre reason when it comes to the Head of State an arbitrary insistence on an imagined constistency is belted out.
Do the elected ceremonial leaders in other countries get involved in day to day politics? We can do away with hereditary peerages while we're at it-even David Cameron agrees.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#176
Report 4 years ago
#176
(Original post by Onde)
She might not, but any future hereditary monarch could, just as any future monarch might be habitually racist like Prince Philip, pro-homoeopathy like Prince Charles, or otherwise be insane.
They would be formally advised by the Prime Minister not to do such a thing, and any that ignored such advice would have invited a constitutional crisis.

Also: now you're suggesting tha having a vote is a bad thing? Cripes, shall we take it away from Farage?

There is also nothing stopping any future monarchs from deciding to do absolutely nothing in aid of this country other than pay some taxes.
Indeed, there isn't, but then, it's likely that doing so would make a republic more likely, don't you think? The incentive is for them to keep working.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#177
Report 4 years ago
#177
(Original post by Onde)
The queen decides to take part in any of those activities that interest them, and nothing else. They can follow old traditions and invent new ones. If she decides to do nothing, she still gets her privileged status as being Head of State, Queen of the Britons, Supreme Governor of the Church of England etc. etc.
No, the Government advises the Queen on what functions she should do. She has input, of course, but ultimately they decide the majority of her itinerary.

In a sense, you're right that it's a self-made job, as it evolves with the needs of the country, but the ultimate decider on the success of such a self-made job is if it's both appreciated and replicated worldwide. I don't think you can deny that about the monarchy.
0
reply
Pro Crastination
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#178
Report 4 years ago
#178
They don't. To me they represent this country's grudging acceptance of class hierarchy, which has lead to a tolerance of one of the worst inter-generational rates of social mobility in the developed world. It's embarrassing that people can proclaim to feel warm and fuzzy about celebrating hereditary rule, how that has any place in a modern, democratic world is beyond me and I think, if said people gave it enough thought, beyond most others, too.

If anyone is interested, the LSE is creating a crowd-sourced constitution for the UK, where individual sections (including who our head of state should be) are discussed and voted on. It's funny, a tweet I saw earlier today encapsulated my sentiment towards it. If we were setting up a brand new mode of liberal-democratic government from scratch today, who on earth would suggest that a monarchy would lead it? The LSE constitution voting appears to reflect that.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#179
Report 4 years ago
#179
(Original post by Onde)
George VI was born in 1895 and died at 56...in the UK, the average life expectancy for a man born in 1900 was apparently 47 years.
You might want to check the life expectancy of the middle and upper classes rather than the whole nation since there was a larger disparity between the two (even now it's still several years), particularly because the wealthy could afford to be treated much better when they're ill or injured, and may I remind you just how old the members of the Royal family get? May I remind you that Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother was born in 1900 and lived to be nearly 102? So she lived more than double the life expectancy, or not much less than depending on just how much higher it was for the ladies at the time.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#180
Report 4 years ago
#180
(Original post by Midlander)
Do the elected ceremonial leaders in other countries get involved in day to day politics?
Yes, they do, actually. The Portugeuse president back in the early 2000s dismissed the PM and installed his favoured candidate, who was then defeated at the polls, that president then being in place but deeply unpopular. The Czech PM is a known eurosceptic and gets in blows with the government quite frequently.

Most other ceremonial presidents are not elected, which is a detail you seem to be determined to ignore.

We can do away with hereditary peerages while we're at it-even David Cameron agrees.
Oh no! I don't want that! :rolleyes:

Hah, did you expect me to be a staunch defender of the hereditary principle in all things? I'm afraid I'm not a caricature.
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 (55)
67.9%
No I haven't decided yet (17)
20.99%
Yes but I might change my mind (9)
11.11%

Watched Threads

View All