Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chiron)
    Value of an opinion is not determined by nationality.
    Ain't that a fact. After all, the Brits on UKL never seem overly reluctant to comment on the US.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chiron)
    Tradition,, stability and continuity are never antiquated.
    That can be debated...

    Value of an opinion is not determined by nationality.
    Well, that's appreciated, but your monarchy, or possible lack of one, is less my business than it is yours. As someone who strongly believes in the principle of minding one's own business, I feel the need to add a qualifier when I'm making a comment about something that I don't feel I have much of a right to have a strong opinion on.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Ain't that a fact. After all, the Brits on UKL never seem overly reluctant to comment on the US.
    Yeah, but I need to feed my superiority complex by being above whining about foreign problems that are blatantly out of my sphere of concern.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    One of the King Edwards introduced life peers. At the beginning they were all life peers. Then they became heriditary. So, as Tony Benn points out, we are modernising ourselves back the the middle ages!

    We don’t know what value we get for the vast amounts of money that we pay to the monarchy because a) we don’t know how much they take, and b) we haven’t the slightest idea what they do for it. France abolished its monarchy 150 years ago, and yet more people still visit the old Palace of Versailles than visit all the British royal palaces put together. An elected Head of State would be financially accountable to the British people in a way that the monarchy has never been and has never wanted to be.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    One of the King Edwards introduced life peers. At the beginning they were all life peers. Then they became heriditary. So, as Tony Benn points out, we are modernising ourselves back the the middle ages!
    The House of Lords Act 1999 kicked out most of the hereditary peers, and as mentioned by someone earlier, the rest could go at any moment. Maybe you should stop drawing your conclusions from the speeches of failed politicians. The Lords are entirely seperate from the Monarchy, anyway, your points are irrelevant as they are part of entirely different subject.

    We don’t know what value we get for the vast amounts of money that we pay to the monarchy because a) we don’t know how much they take, and b) we haven’t the slightest idea what they do for it.
    Perhaps you would like to provide some sources for a change.

    An elected Head of State would be financially accountable to the British people in a way that the monarchy has never been and has never wanted to be.
    To be honest, I trust the Royals more than politicians not to waste money. I remember one claiming £30,000 for postage stamps last year, others claiming outrageous ammounts on transport. Then look at the way champaign socialists like fat Galloway openly abuse the charity funds of sick children! If ill-spending of finances really is a crime worthy of demolishing a whole institution, Downing Street & Parliament are next.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We don’t know what value we get for the vast amounts of money that we pay to the monarchy
    Please state exactly how much this "vast amount" is. The value is completely based on official expenses - the sort of things even a president would have to pay for.

    we don’t know how much they take
    No, we do actually. I can get you the figures now if you want them tha badly. Off the top of my head, it doesn;t exceed £50 Million (possible much less).

    we haven’t the slightest idea what they do for it.
    I explained this above. Every penny the Queen spends that comes from the government is accounted for, and anything not used goes back to the government.


    An elected Head of State would be financially accountable to the British people in a way that the monarchy has never been and has never wanted to be.
    Northumbrian, the monarch is simply not just handed money; she is given money for official purposes - hosting state dinners for visiting dignitaries, travel, security, running the household - and pretty much told what to spend it on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No way. Im a strong Monarchist, and tomorrow after my Chemistry GCSEs...Ill be expanding on this answeer verrrrrrrrrry widely.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eXis)
    No way. Im a strong Monarchist, and tomorrow after my Chemistry GCSEs...Ill be expanding on this answeer verrrrrrrrrry widely.
    I can't wait.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    No way. Im a strong Monarchist, and tomorrow after my Chemistry GCSEs...Ill be expanding on this answeer verrrrrrrrrry widely.
    A strong Monarchist with a Hammer & Sickle?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    A strong Monarchist with a Hammer & Sickle?
    why not? Keep an open mind. Just as you can be against globalisation and not be totally anti-capitalist. When seeing the so-called "left-wing" student activists, you would think that you have to throw everything in the same basket and make sweeping generalisations. Hearing them, you'd think that anti-globalisation, socialism, anti-racism, anti-antisemitism, anti-capitalism are all the same thing.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    why not? Keep an open mind. Just as you can be against globalisation and not be totally anti-capitalist. When seeing the so-called "left-wing" student activists, you would think that you have to throw everything in the same basket and make sweeping generalisations. Hearing them, you'd think that anti-globalisation, socialism, anti-racism, anti-antisemitism, anti-capitalism are all the same thing.
    Actually, communism strives towards a classless society, and therefore the abolition of the monarchy.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonD)
    Since most people didn't get a chance to vote in the last poll, here's another chance.
    Well we had a similar discussion just a few months ago but I appreciate the straightforward, unbiased form of the question you pose.
    In the previous discussion, the question was something along the lines "Is the monarchy useless or will the Queen actually have a purpose someday?", basically meaning the Queen is useless whichever option you choose.

    I'm not a hardcore monarchist but would never support any idea of removing the monarchy.

    Most of the most modern countries in the world have a monarch as Head of Government. I think that the reason why some young people in the UK think it's undemocratic to have a monarch is because the US is seen as a model.

    The UK has a history where the monarch's powers have been repeatedly limited, starting from the Magna Carta. That's why we never had a proper revolution in the UK (apart from Cromwell's). There's never been need to get rid of the monarch. We've perfected a regime, the parliamentary monarchy, which is seen as a model by a lot of the world. Having a president and a presidential regime has already shown serious flaws: just have a look at the excessive power George Bush has or the fact that the French President is a well-known criminal, guilty of fraud but no one can do anything about it.

    Moving to another model (such as a Republic) would be insulting to British history and identity. If the monarchy posed a threat to democracy then it would make sense. Otherwise it would just be about wanting to be less British and more American. No thanks...

    Reforms are always necessary but the actual role of the Queen doesn't have to be questioned. The nobility however, is something else but reforms have already been put in place. It's ridiculous that someone should receive government money because they're the second cousin of the Queen. The Queen (and her close family) has a role which makes sense. Anyone who would claim the opposite really needs to visit a few countries and discover their political systems. There are other countries in the world than the US where they need an all-powerful head of state (In my opinion, that system resembles more absolute monarchy than an actual modern system). In a parliamentary regime, the head of state represents the country. That's their main role and that's it.

    To say the Queen does nothing would be like claiming that 1/2 of the head of states in the world do absolutely nothing: Italy, Germany, Spain, Norway, Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Britain, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand,

    The British parliament is the model for the world's parliaments and parliamentary system. To remove the monarchy, would mean to create a president who would do absolutely nothing (some people are confused and think that removing the monarch would give us a President like Chirac or Bush.

    No! It would give us a president like President Horst Koehler of Germany or President Ciampi of Italy. Who has heard of these people? At least, people know who the Queen is, despite the fact she has a similar role to these presidents.

    (Original post by Speleo)
    Actually, communism strives towards a classless society, and therefore the abolition of the monarchy.
    A lot of people claim that a communist regime is like an elective monarchy. North Korea's Kim Jong II is son of the previous president. It's pretty much monarchy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    How about strengthening the Monarchy and burning Parliament to the ground instead? Then, if I was really loyal to the Crown and killed lots of Parliamentarians I might be awarded with a massive castle, 1000's of acres or land, some servants, and a couple of villages worth of tenant farmers who's buxom daughters could amuse on those rare occasions when I'm not too drunk to be amused.

    I always fancied myself as an Earl. Sounds rather fun.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    How about strengthening the Monarchy and burning Parliament to the ground instead? Then, if I was really loyal to the Crown and killed lots of Parliamentarians I might be awarded with a massive castle, 1000's of acres or land, some servants, and a couple of villages worth of tenant farmers who's buxom daughters could amuse on those rare occasions when I'm not too drunk to be amused.

    I always fancied myself as an Earl. Sounds rather fun.
    You'd have to go back to Charles I to have any chance of that happening.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    How about strengthening the Monarchy and burning Parliament to the ground instead? Then, if I was really loyal to the Crown and killed lots of Parliamentarians I might be awarded with a massive castle, 1000's of acres or land, some servants, and a couple of villages worth of tenant farmers who's buxom daughters could amuse on those rare occasions when I'm not too drunk to be amused.

    I always fancied myself as an Earl. Sounds rather fun.
    There is some truth in your tongue in cheek motivations for monarchy, Thomas Hobbes believed monarchy was one of the best systems for regarding those who have in some way done a commendable service to the state. However, I don't believe that only a monarch can do this.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well we had a similar discussion just a few months ago but I appreciate the straightforward, unbiased form of the question you pose.
    In the previous discussion, the question was something along the lines "Is the monarchy useless or will the Queen actually have a purpose someday?", basically meaning the Queen is useless whichever option you choose.
    Thanks. The most recent one reminds me of the Canadian polls whose results were dependent upon the wording: "Do you think a British Queen should rule our country?". Ideally I would have added a "don't care" option aswell, but it's too late now.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonD)
    Thanks. The most recent one reminds me of the Canadian polls whose results were dependent upon the wording: "Do you think a British Queen should rule our country?". Ideally I would have added a "don't care" option aswell, but it's too late now.
    What poll was this?
    well I'm no expert but there's nothing that British about the Queen. Here we could say, do we want a German/French/Scottish monarch to rule us? Since the monarch can be considered as any of those if you go back enough. However it's not about Canada wanting to know if it wants its monarch to be British but more about it deciding whether it considers itself as a Commonwealth country with a privileged relationship with the UK and the rest of the Commonwealth. The Queen is only a symbol of that relationship.
    The trouble with getting rid of the Queen in Canada is the identity problem. In Australia and New Zealand, it's clear that abolishing the monarchy is an attempt at establishing a more independent identity for their countries. I guess, in a way, it makes sense if they believe that they no longer need a strong link with the UK.
    However in Canada, there's the risk of getting too close to the US so most Canadians of today would not allow the abolition to happen but the up and coming generation is completely influenced by US media, has little sense of Canadian identity and most immigrants just see Canada as an easier alternative than the US. So in a couple of decades, it's hard to imagine anyone there really wanting to keep the monarch but then again, it's hard to imagine any of them even caring about keeping an independent country, espeically if Quebec separates from the country...
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Howard)
    I always fancied myself as an Earl.
    Do you mean Earl the Pearl ??
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    So in a couple of decades, it's hard to imagine anyone there really wanting to keep the monarch but then again, it's hard to imagine any of them even caring about keeping an independent country, espeically if Quebec separates from the country...
    I don't know about that. Losing Quebec would leave a huge gap between the Maritime Provinces and the rest of the country, and I just don't see Canadians to be aggressive enough to cut off all ties with the monarchy. For all their progressive social policies, I think they remain rather conservative with their national identity. But, I'm digressing from the topic of the thread.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Would be awesome if they could kick them all out, and give the money to Live 8 or whatever it's called. They can go and live in Slough, and let some of the starving children live in Windsor. Just my 2 cents
 
 
 
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

2,416

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.