This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Should the royal family exist?
- I didn't watch a single minute of the coronation today!
- Will you feel British without the monarchy?
- Adele from Tracy Beaker
- Is the Monarchy essential for Britain?
- Should Obama be king?
- what are your thoughts on the royal family?
- Monarchists vs Republicans
- Are single-sex schools a thing of the past? Should they be abolished or not?
- i need helpppp and advice
- Kallisto's Saturday Question: Fire Work
- Your Perfect Country
- AQA A-Level History 1D and 2O Notes
- Cheating in exams
- Macbeth practice
- can someone look over my AQA English lit power and conflict response??
- (A Level Politics / Feminism) Help with 2 questions
- OCR A-Level History - French Revolution Help
- History 2022 paper
- London gcse english poetry
Should the Monarchy be abolished? (reprise)
Scroll to see replies
I used to think that the monarchy were a complete waste of space... and in terms of their actual power, i still do. The Queen merely puts her name to government legislation whether she approves or not - but if she refused to condone legislation in this way, then the monarchy would be abolished and replaced by a Presidency.
Yes, the monarchy cost us way way too much money sometimes, and i do feel that their spending should be curbed, but the two reasons i think the monarchy should stay is that 1) It gives some identity to the UK - how many of you could name the leaders of many other countries who havent been in the news so much, e.g. Norway, Finland? Plus, who can name other countries who have monarchies? I know other countries do, e.g. Spain, but i don't know the answers to either of those questions. I kind of like how The Queen is recognisable.
But two, for purely selfish reasons, the monarchy cause a HUGE amount of money to come into the country, regardless of how irritating tourists can be. Without the monarchy, we'd have a President... a British George W Bush, anyone?
Yes, the monarchy cost us way way too much money sometimes, and i do feel that their spending should be curbed, but the two reasons i think the monarchy should stay is that 1) It gives some identity to the UK - how many of you could name the leaders of many other countries who havent been in the news so much, e.g. Norway, Finland? Plus, who can name other countries who have monarchies? I know other countries do, e.g. Spain, but i don't know the answers to either of those questions. I kind of like how The Queen is recognisable.
But two, for purely selfish reasons, the monarchy cause a HUGE amount of money to come into the country, regardless of how irritating tourists can be. Without the monarchy, we'd have a President... a British George W Bush, anyone?
~nat~
I used to think that the monarchy were a complete waste of space... and in terms of their actual power, i still do. The Queen merely puts her name to government legislation whether she approves or not - but if she refused to condone legislation in this way, then the monarchy would be abolished and replaced by a Presidency.
Yes, the monarchy cost us way way too much money sometimes, and i do feel that their spending should be curbed, but the two reasons i think the monarchy should stay is that 1) It gives some identity to the UK - how many of you could name the leaders of many other countries who havent been in the news so much, e.g. Norway, Finland? Plus, who can name other countries who have monarchies? I know other countries do, e.g. Spain, but i don't know the answers to eithero f those questions. I kind of like how The Queen is recognisable.
But two, for purely selfish reasons, the monarchy cause a HUGE amount of money to come into the country, regardless of how irritating tourists can be. Without the monarchy, we'd have a President... a British George W Bush, anyone?
Yes, the monarchy cost us way way too much money sometimes, and i do feel that their spending should be curbed, but the two reasons i think the monarchy should stay is that 1) It gives some identity to the UK - how many of you could name the leaders of many other countries who havent been in the news so much, e.g. Norway, Finland? Plus, who can name other countries who have monarchies? I know other countries do, e.g. Spain, but i don't know the answers to eithero f those questions. I kind of like how The Queen is recognisable.
But two, for purely selfish reasons, the monarchy cause a HUGE amount of money to come into the country, regardless of how irritating tourists can be. Without the monarchy, we'd have a President... a British George W Bush, anyone?
That is because of Britains place in the world, rather than anything else, which means that both the leaders name, and the fact we have a monarchy, are both well known. Its nothing to do with the monarchy itself.
Yes, the monarchy is good for british PR, but is that really enough to keep them?
And would the monarchy have stopped an idiot being put in charge here (Tony Blairs in charge, so i think not
)... but seriously. Whether its president, or prime minister, there role is identical.
Eru - It was also a part of British history that one could water one's plants at 2 o'clock in the morning, leave one's door unlocked and be greeted with a smile to whom one didn't know.
It was also history that lethal arms we're for war and not for streets, savage murder was uncommon and teacher assaults were unheard of. But your right, history is irrelevant.
It was also history that lethal arms we're for war and not for streets, savage murder was uncommon and teacher assaults were unheard of. But your right, history is irrelevant.
Astor
Eru - It was also a part of British history that one could water one's plants at 2 o'clock in the morning, leave one's door unlocked and be greeted with a smile to whom one didn't know.
It was also history that lethal arms we're for war and not for streets, savage murder was uncommon and teacher assaults were unheard of. But your right, history is irrelevant.
It was also history that lethal arms we're for war and not for streets, savage murder was uncommon and teacher assaults were unheard of. But your right, history is irrelevant.
Exactly my point. That isn't how things are now, so people shouldn't think otherwise.
Wow, hold on a minute, no I won't have that, this is just embarrasing yourself.
How can you say the monarchy has had nothing to do with Britains place in the world?
Get real man, your looking through the key hole.
People who oppose the monarchy usually have a decent reason, you know, because of its place now, not because of its past, which is obviously a factor that helped Britains imperialism.
How can you say the monarchy has had nothing to do with Britains place in the world?
Get real man, your looking through the key hole.
People who oppose the monarchy usually have a decent reason, you know, because of its place now, not because of its past, which is obviously a factor that helped Britains imperialism.
What about, instead of abolishing them we ship them off to Canada seeing as they love them, or even better Australia, since they had a vote and the whole thing would be democratic and all. Then they could pay for them and what not, but she'll still be our head of state, and no need for a President.
Kard
What about, instead of abolishing them we ship them of the Canada seeing as they love them, or even better Australia, sicne they had a vote and the whole thing would be democratic and all. Then they could pay for them and what not, but she'll still be our head of state, and no need for a President.
The Canadians aren't nearly as attached to the monarchy as the few Anglophile Canadians on this forum would have you believe.
I think the greatest argument for abolition of the monarchy is compassion for the royal family who, from birth, are given no choice but to live in something approaching reality tv.
an Siarach
I think the greatest argument for abolition of the monarchy is compassion for the royal family who, from birth, are given no choice but to live in something approaching reality tv.
And actually one of the greatest reasons why I oppose it (besides that I think it's an antequated and creepy tradition)
Eru
That is because of Britains place in the world, rather than anything else, which means that both the leaders name, and the fact we have a monarchy, are both well known. Its nothing to do with the monarchy itself.
Yes, the monarchy is good for british PR, but is that really enough to keep them?
And would the monarchy have stopped an idiot being put in charge here (Tony Blairs in charge, so i think not )... but seriously. Whether its president, or prime minister, there role is identical.
Yes, the monarchy is good for british PR, but is that really enough to keep them?
And would the monarchy have stopped an idiot being put in charge here (Tony Blairs in charge, so i think not
)... but seriously. Whether its president, or prime minister, there role is identical.I should have been more specific in what i said: of course, Britain's position in the world is a key factor in its economy, etc, but specifically the monarchy as a tourist attraction is sizeable: not just in london (buckingham palace, tower of london, etc) but nationwide....
I know that the monarchy can't prevent idiotic leaders being in charge - i'm not wholeheartedly 100% for the monarchy! But, i remember being really, really surprised at the positive reaction that the Queen's jubilee a couple of years ago brought out from the public. It is undeniably part of our history, and although the King/Queen is much less of an influence in politics than they were a few hundred years ago, I just think that it isnt a bad thing to maintain such a piece of cultural history, if nothing else, for at least a few hundred years more
Astor
I forgive you.
Why, thankyou.
Looking back, I did make a rather pointless comment. (and my reply to you was probably rude). Ahem, anyway. 
You clearly have know idea about the ancestory of Queen Liz II. No, the Queen was "instilled" to the throne because of the sudden death of King George, her father.
Not through any moral virtue, not through popularity (ie. not through being elected) nor through being chosen - but by virtue of the lottery draw that is birth.
Are you amongst the PC brigade? Human Rights activist? If your going to accuse the Queen of a bloody past, then you may as well destroy humanity, especially Britain, we all contributed to our bloody past not just the Royals. Every country that had a respectable empire has a bloody past, but at least our monarchy insisted we give something back - take a look at the 'Raj' thread- he makes good points. Of course, without the British monarchy's past, you , my man, wouldn't be inhibiting "Australia" - a little gratefulness goes a long way, that man.
Ah, you misunderstand me. I wasn't referring to colonial interests, the empire, or anything like that (I'm very glad it happened, in fact, considering how much I benefit from it). I was thinking more of the backstabbing that often occurred around the time of succession, and the war involved in conquering oneself a big enough plot of land to call a kingdom.
She receives a lot of money? Wrong again. The public pay for the upkeep of the Royal palaces, ones we would keep open and pay for whether we had the Royals or not, the Queen owns her private land, and she has her own income, not state funded, so does Charlie, with his private Duchy.
I know. Doesn't she get some sort of tax break? And i thought there was something like a few million pounds a year, some sort of pension.
Well, overwhelmingly, the general Aussies pefer thier Queen, a minority of 'republicans' dont.
hmm. I think you'll find that it was problems with the proposed republic that put people off (during the referendum, the proposed system meant that people could not actually directly elect the president - and things like that). It's true that no one's in a rush to get a republic, but in 20, 30 years, the question will come round again, and if the proposition for a republic is good enough, people will go for that.
How can you tell Britain you want ITS monarchy to end? Maybe if you had the decency to say "I dont want to interfer with British politics, but I wouldnt mind the Commonwealth Crown to end, such as in Aussie". Maybe then respect would be had.
I'm just commenting.
Regardless, I state my claim. I am a loyal citizen (nee subject) to my homeland, and that naturally involves the Crown, our crown.
But would you be if you got someone worse than Elizabeth? Keep in mind that who gets the crown is determined by birth, not by any personal qualities. Could you respect a monarch who was a nasty person? A monarch who didn't promote their countries interests, but lounged about on a pension? Would you be able to read about their exploits in the tabloids without a touch of bile? esp knowing they were your 'king'/'queen'?
imo, this is a little what charles is like. Elizabeth is ok, her parents, esp during the blitz, were fantastic, but charles is intolerable.
On this occasion I would ask that you forgive me, for I cannot be bothered to strip your post down and reply.
But you made, for once, a good comment, about the actual ruling 'monarch', yes I do like Lizzie, very much, as do so many people, she is highly respected, and she may have been the reason the monarchy survived the 'changing 80s', but her successor, which is supposed to be Charles, is very unpopular, correct. However...
...Charles is now well in to his 50's, they will either revise the heir agenda, and make it William, or he will coronate and abdicate, even if he does take the crown, he will have 10/20 years in him max, not long enough to destroy the monarchy.
William;
He will be our next 'major' King, and he is, already, very well respected and likeable (do not confuse Harry), William is seen as a 'toff', but also very down to earth and 'modern', he will keep the formalities of a monarch but he will probably be more 'human' (which I oppose).
Williams popularity boosted back in 1997 when the world saw him mourn at his mothers funeral.
Moreover, I personally don't mind Charlie, all he has done is what any other normal person has done, few divorces, re-marriages etc.
But you made, for once, a good comment, about the actual ruling 'monarch', yes I do like Lizzie, very much, as do so many people, she is highly respected, and she may have been the reason the monarchy survived the 'changing 80s', but her successor, which is supposed to be Charles, is very unpopular, correct. However...
...Charles is now well in to his 50's, they will either revise the heir agenda, and make it William, or he will coronate and abdicate, even if he does take the crown, he will have 10/20 years in him max, not long enough to destroy the monarchy.
William;
He will be our next 'major' King, and he is, already, very well respected and likeable (do not confuse Harry), William is seen as a 'toff', but also very down to earth and 'modern', he will keep the formalities of a monarch but he will probably be more 'human' (which I oppose).
Williams popularity boosted back in 1997 when the world saw him mourn at his mothers funeral.
Moreover, I personally don't mind Charlie, all he has done is what any other normal person has done, few divorces, re-marriages etc.
Kard
Haha, oh man, Harry should be King, we'd all be doped up.
Let us pray that this event never happens.
Oh dear God, not this thread again!!!
Actually the present Royal House was begun by the Glorious Revolution in 1688 - which was a small, but worthwhile and justified (read the Bill of Rights) civil war.
As said above, the Queen doesn't get paid (there's a difference between pay and being state funded) and works a full time and extraordinarily stressful job... in her late 70s.
milady
Respect for what? A monarch, who has been instilled in their throne purely by the murders their ancestors committed, who is no better than any other person, yet receives a lot of money to do very little.
Actually the present Royal House was begun by the Glorious Revolution in 1688 - which was a small, but worthwhile and justified (read the Bill of Rights) civil war.
As said above, the Queen doesn't get paid (there's a difference between pay and being state funded) and works a full time and extraordinarily stressful job... in her late 70s.
Related discussions
- Should the royal family exist?
- I didn't watch a single minute of the coronation today!
- Will you feel British without the monarchy?
- Adele from Tracy Beaker
- Is the Monarchy essential for Britain?
- Should Obama be king?
- what are your thoughts on the royal family?
- Monarchists vs Republicans
- Are single-sex schools a thing of the past? Should they be abolished or not?
- i need helpppp and advice
- Kallisto's Saturday Question: Fire Work
- Your Perfect Country
- AQA A-Level History 1D and 2O Notes
- Cheating in exams
- Macbeth practice
- can someone look over my AQA English lit power and conflict response??
- (A Level Politics / Feminism) Help with 2 questions
- OCR A-Level History - French Revolution Help
- History 2022 paper
- London gcse english poetry
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
