Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You'd think that, wouldn't you...but they have exactly the same power as they did in the past - just the progression of society and improvements in the democratic system now means that their interaction is frowned upon.
    But, if queeny really got pissed she could still send us to war - and from your recent outbursts i think you might be the first conscript on the list!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phil23)
    sw a ducumentary about henry 8th on teh history channel today! man were the royals powerful 500 years ago; good job they dont have that sort of authority nowadays huh?
    I think I'd prefer Lizzie running things than Tony Blair.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bikerx23)
    You'd think that, wouldn't you...but they have exactly the same power as they did in the past - just the progression of society and improvements in the democratic system now means that their interaction is frowned upon.
    But, if queeny really got pissed she could still send us to war - and from your recent outbursts i think you might be the first conscript on the list!
    not quite rock man Conscription is voluntary. and the royals have lost a lot of power to parliament after the parlimentarians defeated charles the 2nd whenever it was

    also, they can't kill anyone anymore! Death sentence/hung, drawn, quartered, being disemboweled and all that crpa is history.

    pk
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    It was Charles I... although to be honest, the defeat of his grandson James VII was the more significant in terms of removing Royal power.

    And the word 'conscript' implies involuntary drafting into military service.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yea...but the queen can still dissolve parliament - then she could make laws revoking all of those things you have suggested...not that its ever going to happen.
    Enjoy!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We could easily solve this argument by shooting them all.

    Cmon, lets face it, what difference would it make?

    Keep the corgis tho cos theyre cool
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by PEDR)
    We could easily solve this argument by shooting them all.

    Cmon, lets face it, what difference would it make?

    Keep the corgis tho cos theyre cool
    The French guillotined theirs - and it doesn't seem to have done them any harm!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    The French guillotined theirs - and it doesn't seem to have done them any harm!
    yeah...apart from executing thousands of royalists and aristocrats whose only crime was to be born privileged and to plunge Europe into a war that lasted for 25 years...no harm done apart from that :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Lord Waddell)
    yeah...apart from executing thousands of royalists and aristocrats whose only crime was to be born privileged and to plunge Europe into a war that lasted for 25 years...no harm done apart from that :rolleyes:
    We are talking of present times - although the French executed their royal family, and although a war ensued, they are doing very nicely now, thank you - or do you think they are now worse off being a republic?

    And if so, how?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    We are talking of present times - although the French executed their royal family, and although a war ensued, they are doing very nicely now, thank you - or do you think they are now worse off being a republic?

    And if so, how?
    The French ideals of liberty, equality, fraternity did not neccesarily ensue from a republic. Indeed, they were around when in the brief period between 1790-1793, France had a constitutional monarchy. Democracy does not necessarily come from abolishing a monarchy. Would you say that Britain is not democratic, just because we have a monarchy that has no real powers? France's socialist economy isn't exactly a model that the rest of us want to emulate is it?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Lord Waddell)
    The French ideals of liberty, equality, fraternity did not neccesarily ensue from a republic. Indeed, they were around when in the brief period between 1790-1793, France had a constitutional monarchy. Democracy does not necessarily come from abolishing a monarchy. Would you say that Britain is not democratic, just because we have a monarchy that has no real powers? France's socialist economy isn't exactly a model that the rest of us want to emulate is it?
    You haven't answered my question on whether you think France is worse off after despatching their monarchy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Is France better than Britain because it is a republic?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Cant deny that France is a hole, but thats got nothing to do with getting rid of the monarchy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    You haven't answered my question on whether you think France is worse off after despatching their monarchy.
    France isn't worse off after having got rid of the monarchy, but they would be no worse off if they had kept it. Its got more to do with how incompetant the French are at managing their economy than anything else.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The Royals? Strip them of all their power. Now. Even if all they really have left is figurehead influence. Keep them around if you must, as a tourist attraction and something for the weak-minded to look up to, even pay them to perform this role (although they could get by on a LOT less then they do now, even if their budget is small change in national terms) but take away any remaining power to be in charge of anything.

    No need to turn us into a republic, or get a president - just keep the system we have, current name and all, and remove the power of the queen as the head of state - it's not like it gets exercised anyway, thankfully. Nothing else needs to change (although any lawyers would probably disagree with me)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Also they killed Princess Diana.

    Cue debate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TomD22)
    No need to turn us into a republic, or get a president - just keep the system we have, current name and all, and remove the power of the queen as the head of state - it's not like it gets exercised anyway, thankfully. Nothing else needs to change (although any lawyers would probably disagree with me)
    It gets exercised all the time. Who else would instate a new government, approve Parliament changes or declare war, if there was no Head of State?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    We are talking of present times - although the French executed their royal family, and although a war ensued, they are doing very nicely now, thank you - or do you think they are now worse off being a republic?

    And if so, how?
    It's a sad day when anyone holds up France as a beacon of light to the British.

    France is a pit of despair. I'm not sure if that can be blamed on its republic. May I remind you of the 'Vote for a crook not a nazi' situation at the last presidential election?

    ----

    [quote=TomD22] The Royals? Strip them of all their power. Now. [quote]

    Hmm, I think I'd rather not...

    Even if all they really have left is figurehead influence. Keep them around if you must, as a tourist attraction and something for the weak-minded to look up to, even pay them to perform this role (although they could get by on a LOT less then they do now, even if their budget is small change in national terms) but take away any remaining power to be in charge of anything.
    They don't get paid. They get an allowance for their expenses, but they get no salary whatsoever.

    No need to turn us into a republic, or get a president - just keep the system we have, current name and all, and remove the power of the queen as the head of state - it's not like it gets exercised anyway, thankfully. Nothing else needs to change (although any lawyers would probably disagree with me)
    Um, so who would be the head of state, head of the Commonwealth, chief executive, head of the armed forces?

    Also they killed Princess Diana.

    Cue debate.
    That's not inspiring debate, that's being a sick ****.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We cannot justify having a monarcy by calling £36m peanuts. I'm totally astonished the British people actually want a monarchy that does nothing apart from bring some tourism into the country.

    Plug all the funds and leave them to either sell teir assets or get a real job. Just because their part of the 'establishment,' it doesn't make them superhuman.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I personnaly think that the royal family is a gd thing, it's kinda an emblem for the british ppl..but they definitly should get a job..they have no right to live under the ppl's money, that's jst unfair..Plus they r jst there as an emblem; i mean the queen does not have any power in politics or whatever..so they should get there own money..they are overpayed for doing NOTHIN !! that sux when ya think of ppl dyin of starvation and so on..I deffo knw nothin is gonna change coz thats jst life but thats definitly not the gd way to behave, its jst gna make ppl think badly of royality coz they (seem) to have all the privileges..
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,197

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.