Turn on thread page Beta

Should the Monarchy be abolished? (reprise) watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don’t think that they should be abolished as they help to bring suckers like Americans to this country on holiday. However in saying this I am not a royalists and I do believe that they are a pack of inbred bunch of snobs but my opinion doesn’t carry much weight.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by esx77)
    I agree that the queen should play a bigger role within society and I hope prince william and harry are sent to fight abroad for their countries - and not given suck up status
    The Heir to the throne cannot realistically endanger his life. What "wider" role would you want the monarch to play? You guys always say "the monarchy is out of touch", then when you see them in public you say "who do they think they are...look at those people sucking up to them".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Then they should be elected
    Ideally the upper house should be elected, but they aren't. There is the problem of what happens when an executive does not have a majority in the houses of parliament. That could get tricky. Electing the Lords would require a complete change to our political system. Besides, we don't vote for the Judiciary even though they control our laws, but that doesn't seem to bother you. Very few of the Lords are hereditary and the hereditary peers are thankfully being eroded.


    I presume you mean President. We do not need an American style presidancy. We do not seem to think there's anything wrong with sending Tony Blair around the world with the privilages he currently enjoys.
    The way the government works is such that a prime minister would need a "higher power" if the queen were removed. Most republics work like this. An american style presidency is the model of many presidencies around the world so it seems convenient.


    You honestly believe that? Even if it is true, why should the divine right of God giver her the right to influence the politics of a modern democracy?
    Yes. Read any constitutional history of Britain, and you might believe it too. That is what she does and why she exists. She also is the patron of numerous charities and has taken over some of Diana's former charities. She has no influence at all over politics. British monarch's don't rule by divine right; The Magna Carta,The Bill of Rights and the Acts of Settlement clearly state this. All the kings who tried to were kicked out or killed. They rule through parliament, hence the name of our parliament "The Queen in Parliament" and on the advice of the PM.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by milady)
    The house of lords is an embarrassment. Senile old men in drooling half-dozes. They should chuck them all out and have elections.

    The queen is all right. We got a nice 'Queen's Birthday' public holiday yesterday (in Australia). Lovely long weekend. Do you get that holiday in Britain?

    I hate Charles, though. I couldn't stand it if he was king; imagine his massive nose on the back of coins; everytime I received change his smug face would be leering at me.

    I think the line of succession should somehow skip him.
    I personally don't like the Prince of Wales much, but it is not the person but the title that is under scrutiny here. The house of Lords is full of very able legislators. Something like 16 of them are hereditary, the rest are appointed. The Civil Servants and The Judiciary are also appointed; should we vote for them too? They are an absolutely essential stabilising force to an elected commons which will to often rush into things for personal and political gain, and are increasingly less well qualified for the job they do. Lord Falconer, Lord Butler and Lord Heseltine are jus three examples of very able politicians and legislators. As long as they safeguard my interests it doesn;t matter to me if they are elected or not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    By the way, can we keep our discussion focussed on the Monarchy not the Royal Family.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Even if it is true, why should the divine right of God giver her the right to influence the politics of a modern democracy?
    Because God says so?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by melbourne)
    erm not quite, he gets something like £3 million a year i believe
    Somewhat less than a third rate soccer player then.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chiron)
    Then they should be elected
    Ideally the upper house should be elected, but they aren't. There is the problem of what happens when an executive does not have a majority in the houses of parliament. That could get tricky. Electing the Lords would require a complete change to our political system. Besides, we don't vote for the Judiciary even though they control our laws, but that doesn't seem to bother you. Very few of the Lords are hereditary and the hereditary peers are thankfully being eroded.


    I presume you mean President. We do not need an American style presidancy. We do not seem to think there's anything wrong with sending Tony Blair around the world with the privilages he currently enjoys.
    The way the government works is such that a prime minister would need a "higher power" if the queen were removed. Most republics work like this. An american style presidency is the model of many presidencies around the world so it seems convenient.


    You honestly believe that? Even if it is true, why should the divine right of God giver her the right to influence the politics of a modern democracy?
    Yes. Read any constitutional history of Britain, and you might believe it too. That is what she does and why she exists. She also is the patron of numerous charities and has taken over some of Diana's former charities. She has no influence at all over politics. British monarch's don't rule by divine right; The Magna Carta,The Bill of Rights and the Acts of Settlement clearly state this. All the kings who tried to were kicked out or killed. They rule through parliament, hence the name of our parliament "The Queen in Parliament" and on the advice of the PM.
    Im not diagreeing with you here, but the Magna Carta was formed in the 11th century and parliament was formed in the 16th/17th century......??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Somewhat less than a third rate soccer player then.
    Where did you get that quote howard, you must have made it up- :rolleyes: hehe!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by melbourne)
    Im not diagreeing with you here, but the Magna Carta was formed in the 11th century and parliament was formed in the 16th/17th century......??
    Magna Carta - 1215
    Parliament has its earliest origins in the mid to late 12th century
    The modern parliament can be traced roughly to the mid 17th century
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cheesecakebobby)
    I don't see any reason keeping a monarchy other than tradition, and I am firmly against tradition for tradition's sake. The royal family represents the archaic elements of British autocracy and is not a reflection of modern Britain in the slightest- they are lame ducks with no real purpose. Kick them out and open up Buckingham Palace etc as historical artefacts for the public to view.
    If you are against tradition for tradition's sake then why are you for change for change's sake? For that is what republicanism is all about. Is the monarchy preventing poor people moving up in society? No. Is it imprisoning people because they oppose it? No. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Ideally the upper house should be elected, but they aren't. There is the problem of what happens when an executive does not have a majority in the houses of parliament. That could get tricky. Electing the Lords would require a complete change to our political system. Besides, we don't vote for the Judiciary even though they control our laws, but that doesn't seem to bother you. Very few of the Lords are hereditary and the hereditary peers are thankfully being eroded.
    Life Peers were first introduced in the middle ages ai believe. Now that's modernisation for ya!

    The modern Queen is a figure head, the monarchy a way of the PM having royal powers. Ask Tony Benn :smile:
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Crappity crap hell.

    Didn't we discuss this, pretty much eliminate every republican argument except the disestablishment of the CofE and CofS and the 'it's not really democratic' one?

    Now we start it again. Excuse me while I lose my marbles.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Life Peers were first introduced in the middle ages ai believe. Now that's modernisation for ya!

    The modern Queen is a figure head, the monarchy a way of the PM having royal powers. Ask Tony Benn :smile:
    To my knowledge life peer are a fairly recent thing. Hereditary peers are the ones who have been there since the beginning, but there are very very few of them left in the house now. Yes the Queen has a figurehead role, but the Crown also has a an important Legal and Political purpose.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Uhm, if it isn't broke, don't try and fix it. Besides, the arguments for abolishing the monarchy are comparatively weak to those in support of the tradition.

    Why is it that people are so adament to rebrand Britain, showing complete disregard for such a rich history?

    And can the person who stated it please explain why the monarchy is "so expensive". If anything, it generates cash, and a lot of it!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    Uhm, if it isn't broke, don't try and fix it. Besides, the arguments for abolishing the monarchy are comparatively weak to those in support of the tradition.

    Why is it that people are so adament to rebrand Britain, showing complete disregard for such a rich history?

    And can the person who stated it please explain why the monarchy is "so expensive". If anything, it generates cash, and a lot of it!
    I have a theory that anti-monarchists fit into four categories:
    - Those with naive idealism
    - Those with an inferiority complex
    - Those who are jealous
    - Those who aren't too clear on how the constitution works.

    To be fair, i think many of them fall into the last category.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chiron)
    I have a theory that anti-monarchists fit into four categories:
    - Those with naive idealism
    - Those with an inferiority complex
    - Those who are jealous
    - Those who aren't too clear on how the constitution works.

    To be fair, i think many of them fall into the last category.
    I can think of a fifth. Those who are just plain kunts.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chiron)
    I have a theory that anti-monarchists fit into four categories:
    - Those with naive idealism
    - Those with an inferiority complex
    - Those who are jealous
    - Those who aren't too clear on how the constitution works.

    To be fair, i think many of them fall into the last category.
    Well, from my American perspective (which I realize makes my opinion of lesser value on this topic), I just find the retention of the monarchy to be creepy, as it seems to be such an antiquated concept.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    Well, from my American perspective (which I realize makes my opinion of lesser value on this topic), I just find the retention of the monarchy to be creepy, as it seems to be such an antiquated concept.
    Tradition,, stability and continuity are never antiquated. Value of an opinion is not determined by nationality.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The way this poll seems to be going at the moment will be a much more accurate reflection of what British people think of the monarchy than the last poll I think. Despite all the arguements of the republicans, every opinion poll that I have seen suggest that the British people are still firmly in favour of the monarchy, rendering their 'the monarchy is anti-democratic' argument null and void. How can something be undemocratic if at the end the people support it?
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 25, 2005
The home of Results and Clearing

1,884

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

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.