Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Where does the 90m come from? Where would it be if there wasn't a monarchy?
    So now you want to abolish the monarchy and nick all of their money and estates? That sounds illegal. The £90 million presumably comes from money made by estates the monarch owns, that would follow the windors presumably if they were kicked out.

    You also didn't answer the question about the other European countries with non-demcratically elected heads of state being undemocratic.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    You also didn't answer the question about the other European countries with non-demcratically elected heads of state being undemocratic.
    I'd have to look at their systems.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    You mean it would be democratically accountable in the hands of an elected government?
    You have a very giddy view of how your tax money gets spent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Buckingham Palace should be kept same on the outside but inside should be used yo house the poor for a few weeks to give them a taste of the conditions the better off in society live.

    Abolish the monarchy ASAP! With it in place, our society is a ginat contradiction. We supposedly live in a meritocracy and explain to children they can do anything if they work hard, and then explain that theres a person who acts as head of state simply because they were born to the right parents.

    Its not the queens fault, im sure shes quite a nice person, but lets make Britain more democratic (and liberate the Windsor family).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    You mean it would be democratically accountable in the hands of an elected government?
    The Monarch's private income comes from money she would receive whether or not she were Queen. It is private property, bought and maintained from her own pocket.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    You have a very giddy view of how your tax money gets spent.
    He he giddy.

    The Monarch's private income comes from money she would receive whether or not she were Queen. It is private property, bought and maintained from her own pocket.
    I'm all for robbing 'em
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    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.
    Well when I hear some serious journalist of Macleans (Canadian equivalent to Time or The Economist which you've probably heard of) suggest that the monarchy should be abolished and that after all, it wouldn't be a constitutional nightmare as some predict since they'd just have to adopt the U.S. constitution with a couple of amendments, well when I hear that, it kind of shows me that a lot of Canadians have lost all sense of identity. I don't think Alberta would be that bothered to join the US but that since I've never been to Alberta, that's only speculation.
    Despite the crazy relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada, Quebec is the most Canadian province (with Ontario maybe). The Maritimes, especially Newfoundland have a different relationship with their British (and Irish) heritage and they probably wouldn't feel bad as independent states (Newfoundland has already threatened to succeed and they've lowered the Canadian flag in protest) or maybe establishing some small federal state, maybe even with Vermont but that's only speculation...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    I don't believe a leader should be able to go to war without the consent of parliament.
    So you clearly don't believe in a presidential regime.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    He he giddy.

    I'm all for robbing 'em
    Then perhaps you should be declared an outlaw in the old style, fair game for any citizen to do as they please...after all you would have no respect for other people's rights.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Ireland, Findland, France, Russia, China, Italy, Greece, Germany, Poland, USA, Austria, Switzerland.....(apologise for any mistakes)
    less advanced countries and with worse track records in democracy and human rights...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    I don't believe a leader should be able to go to war without the consent of parliament. I do not think important treaties should be able to b signed with consent from parliament. I do not think the PM should be able to appoint cronies to our upper chamber.
    Well vote accordingly then. The Lords will be reformed, and I doubt it'll be for the PM's cronies in the end.

    Why should treaties be put before Parliament? They don't affect the law of the United Kingdom, after all.


    We have a Blair and a Queen though. As well as several hangers on etc
    Just as other Parliamentary systems (eg, Éire) have a President and a prime minister. I wouldn't want to live in a presidential system, they're horrible and just not cricket.

    I really think you should give up on the financial argument, it's not going to wash.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    Well when I hear some serious journalist of Macleans (Canadian equivalent to Time or The Economist which you've probably heard of) suggest that the monarchy should be abolished and that after all, it wouldn't be a constitutional nightmare as some predict since they'd just have to adopt the U.S. constitution with a couple of amendments, well when I hear that, it kind of shows me that a lot of Canadians have lost all sense of identity. I don't think Alberta would be that bothered to join the US but that since I've never been to Alberta, that's only speculation.
    I do agree that Alta. and possibly a few of the other flat-land provinces would be receptive to the idea of abolishing the monarchy, but I still believe that, overall, Canadians are so reluctant to make waves that any measure would inevitably be voted against in a referendum. While they may not culturally identify with the crown, it seems decidedly more Canadian to keep the status quo.

    Despite the crazy relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada, Quebec is the most Canadian province (with Ontario maybe). The Maritimes, especially Newfoundland have a different relationship with their British (and Irish) heritage and they probably wouldn't feel bad as independent states (Newfoundland has already threatened to succeed and they've lowered the Canadian flag in protest) or maybe establishing some small federal state, maybe even with Vermont but that's only speculation...
    I don't know. I think that the Maritimes may CLAIM that they would have no issues with being independent, but I still think most of that is just posturing and tough talk. Last I checked, the Maritimes still had the highest proportion of unemployment and welfare recipients in Canada, which is due to the seasonal nature of much of the work there. If they separated from Canada, they would need to dramatically increase taxes to maintain the current status of living.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The Monarchy should be made bigger and I should be allowed to join. Crown Prince "Howard the Good"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    All I shall say is this.....

    ....Love it, or hate it, but you are inhibiting the worlds fourth richest nation, you are a member of nation that has achieved, arguably, more than any other country, I dont intend to patronise anyone and give them a history of the empire etc, im sure your intelligent enough.

    But, Britain as we know it wasn't built over night, it took time, sociologically, scientifically, tech...etc......, I am very grateful have been born in a country that holds its head up high, a country that is internationally respected, a country where I achieve what I AM capable, regardless of the so called 'classed' system.

    Anyone, with passion, desire, motivation and ambition can achieve what they want in this country, and yes its true, there is no barrier, only the person can stop themselves, so how can anyone claim we live in an undemocratic society when we have the best (or most lenient) benefit system in the world, and how can we be labelled undemocratic when there are existant dictorial regimes in certain S.African countries?

    The country that I was eagerly describing above, the UK, has enjoyed this success and it has always had a monarchy in the background, and not once have I ever been told I cannot 'do' something because it's the Queens Orders.

    Our country can comfortably afford a rather cheap monarchy, we have rising taxes due to OTHER political scandals, but thats a different topic.

    If you think the Royals enhance the classed system, then please show me some sort of evidence that suggests mainstream British culture involves wearing jodhpurs, living in castles, wearing 'bling' (or crowns). It does not. The majority of us accept that it is just one family who do this because its traditional and connects us with our past culture, besides I think it increases prestigiousness.

    I enjoy watching the Royals, it gives me a sense of loyalty, pride and belonging, if we had a 'normal' person running the gaff, like a president, i just wouldn't feel the same loyalty, there would be no 'mysteriousness' about that ruler. The Queen/Royals are a very interesting and facsinating bunch, unlike the Blair clan.

    Anyway, my point being, I live in a very wealthy country with achieveable aspirations across the board for anyone who wants it, and this has not in any way been oppressed by our constitutional monarchy.

    I firmly believe people who dislike the Royals are either envious French, jealous yanks, middle-aged women who wish they had worked harder at school, or people who just like to moan for political sake. Oh and people who are individually jealous of the ACTUAL person, Elizabeth, not the position/role, which is sad.

    Just my thoughs.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    As long as her Majesty reigns, I will be happy with the Monarchy. I don't know about Prince Charles, and Prince William though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree, Her Majesty, bless her, is a great representative, and she is the best diplomat, world leaders actually listen to her because she's been in the game when they were in nappies.

    But (it will be King William) will have a lot of work to do, but lets not forget Queen Vic, very well respected, then it was similar, and then we had 'er Maj, so its a cycle, hopefully we'll get through Williams junior days quick enough and he'll have a bit of life experience worth respecting, and it will continue like that, and then start all over again.

    No matter how "modern" we think we are, we're always going to have a monarch, because there is a little bit of British passion in everybody, that passion only wakes up once a century, and it starts all over again when it dies.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    YES!

    They are expensive and the monarchy is INCREDIBLY undemocratic.
    They cost well under £1 per person per year for heaven's sake!!!!! Also, on an 'undemocratic scales' the EU defeats the royal family by a million miles!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't abolish the monarchy but I would abolish the Windsors.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noam Chomsky)
    ...a couple of years ago there was a debate in Australia as to whether to turn the country into a real republic or to stay technically within the monarchy. And the opinion divided pretty much as you'd expect, you know, so-called Left was for a republic, so-called Right for the monarchy. But there were some exceptions, a well-known philosopher in Australia, who was very much on the Left. And he wrote an article in one of the Australian papers coming out in favour of the monarchy and the people were very surprised, you know. And then he explained, he said well it's good to have a monarchy because it gets people to ridicule power. The symbolism of the monarchy is so ludicrous and comical that it just makes people automatically contemptuous of power and regard it as a joke, which is a good thing 'cause you ought to be contemptuous of power. So it's worth keeping. His point was that, well there's one good aspect to the monarchy, namely its absurdity, and therefore it has a way of inciting contempt and ridicule for power and maybe it's not a bad thing.
    I agree wholeheartedly with the above opinion.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kard)
    I wouldn't abolish the monarchy but I would abolish the Windsors.
    Bring back the Stuarts!!!!*pelted with projectiles*

    Just kidding. seriously. I am not a Jacobite, so please do not try to kill me.
 
 
 
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

2,609

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level 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.