Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone with any vague understanding and respect for this country, its history and culture, can understand that without the English crown there really is no England. That the English in contrast to their continental counterparts have always preferred monarchy to republicanism (and this has arguably spared them several bloody revolutions unlike their continental counterparts) as a result of their empiricist tendencies.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Fatal_Microbes)
    Doesn't the monarch have power to veto any decision made by the government houses?
    I haven't read through the thread, so I don't know if anyone else has said this.


    Yes, theoretically the monarch has the power to 'veto' any decision, by witholding his/her Royal Assent.

    In practice, this hasn't been done since Queen Anne, who refused her Assent to the Scottish Militia bill.

    Queen Elizabeth II has also refused (it was a bill regarding something in Iraq I believe), but seeing as the bill wasn't technically debated properly in Parliament it hadn't got a chance of being passed anyway.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Tourism money can be utilised to improve living standards... so why get rid? Keeping them isn't all that bad in my humble opinion.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hiky)
    thanks for the neg rep

    EDIT
    Leave your name next time
    I probably won't. I find it annoys people more if I don't.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underwood94)
    I never said that it did, but the Queen is the person who chooses the government and has the power to declare war - she also represents our country to the rest of the world. I think it should be our right as citizens to choose the person who is at the very top of the system. In fact, it would be nice if we could really call ourselves 'citizens' rather than subjects.
    First off, your legal status is as a British citizen by law. British subject status is a very specific thing, which only applies to very few people, usually elderly people connected with Ireland.

    There are plenty of significant roles held by unelected people - and quite properly so. The Queen is a diplomat? Yes, and how many of our diplomats are elected? Zero. Equally other positions, such as judges, are not democratically accountable - they have the authority to deprive you of your most fundamental rights and liberties.

    they are no different than anyone else. Why should they be given powers over the rest of us?
    Because it works effectively, and there are so many negatives behind any alternative proposals.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm sorry, but any one who says "get rid" is completely and utterly ignorant to the work the royal family does, and the power they have.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonjon123)
    Ok, I know they exsist. Ok. But how will this affect us? What will it do to you and me? Wouldn't it stop wars?
    Take a look at the people attending. Big names.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...g_participants

    Whatever plans they have for globalisation will affect us.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    Take a look at the people attending. Big names.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...g_participants

    Whatever plans they have for globalisation will affect us.
    I used to be like you. But, when I asked every single conspiracy theorist they said they don't know how it is going to affect us. The bildberg group have been running for over 60 years but how has it affected us?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Yay, it ensures a non-political head of state and provides the final layer on the checks on Parliament. And as Churchill said, "While the Queen occupies the highest office of state, no one can take over the government. While she is head of the law, no politician can take over the courts. While she is ultimately in command of the Armed Forces, no would-be dictator can take over the Army." So far from being contrary to liberal-democracy (which is a sort of contradiction anyway) the Monarchy safeguards a liberal democracy as well as the country as a whole. In reality a Monarchy is irrelevant as to whether a nation is a liberal-democracy anyway, the Kingdom of Sweden is often sighted as some sort of liberal haven yet it is a Constitutional Monarchy.

    I can think of three examples in recent times where a Constitutional Monarch (or royal representative) has averted disaster. First of all there is the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. On this occasion the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, dismissed the government of Gough Whitlam when the Senate withheld Supply to the government which made political deadlock. There is the recent Belgian Constitutional crisis where it looked as if the country was going to split in two, but the King, risking his throne, has sorted the whole mess out appointing interim governments and heading negotiations between the parties. Then there was in 1921 when the King, who had made his unhappiness at the behaviour of the Black and Tans in Ireland well known to his government, was dissatisfied with the official speech prepared for him for the opening of the new Parliament of Northern Ireland. King George read out his own speech on reconciliation which is widely credited as the catalyst of goodwill which led to a truce, ending the Anglo-Irish War. The reason for these uses of royal power stems from the Liberal thinking that men will always seek there own self interest. A Monarch is unique in that there own self interest is wholly intertwined with his kingdom, therefore a Monarch is always looking out for the best interests of the state and its people and as such is both a protector of democracy and the man to step in when democracy has failed.

    The Figurehead role of the Monarch is much higher than that of an elected head of state, who is only there for 4 years and wont have anywhere near the same amount of respect or support both at home and abroad. The perfect head of state transcends class, race and politics and a Monarchy is the best way to get this. The best example for this concept is the Kingdom of Spain, the Spaniards have recently reinstated there monarchy as a uniting force for the nation where the wounds and divides from General Franco’s regime are still fresh.

    Now to counteract these arguments you may point to America where the state is protected by separation of powers and the constitution. Yet the USA is unique in that it is essentially 50 countries united into one covering a vast geographical area. In a much smaller country like Britain a Labour man from Glasgow is, more or less, going to believe in the same things as a Labour man from London. This unites the party in a such away American party leaders can only hope for and make a party for more powerful. Now if the Lords and Monarch were replaced with an electoral system it is quite possible both houses and head of state may be controlled by one party, in such a situation that party could get away with just about anything including the re-writing of said constitution to suit there own needs. A case in point would be the French Republic, now on its 5th incarnation, each republic was safeguarded by a constitution and yet four of them have failed. I would be wary of vesting power into what it simply a pieced of paper, look what happened to the Treaty of Versailles.

    Republicans always harp on about the cost of the monarchy, but this argument is fundamentally flawed. Tax money goes to the Queen only for official duties, house up-keep etc. The rest of the Royal Family have there own private estates or get money from the Queens Private estate. Furthermore; in return for the civil list the Government gets the revenue from the Crown Estate which is £190 million per year, much more than the £11.2m which the Queen gets on the civil list or the rather dubious cost estimate of £150m from the Republic group. But in reality the financial argument against the institution is irrelevant because a Presidents office would still have to be funded and the palaces maintained. However no matter which side of the argument you are on you must agree Britain’s constitutional future should be determined by finance.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    They are a white English family. I am white English. I don't have a problem with them. I'd like to see other people on this thread be equally as honest.

    I personally would like to see communists and other internationalists with their heads on spikes at Tower bridge, and one day they surely will, because we've got the sniff on them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Windsor%20family%20tree.pdf is the royal family tree.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    No a politicians republic is like a game of football where the ref plays.

    Having a monarch protects democracy. If Germany had retained the Kaiser on democratic terms Hitler would never have been able to get full control. Look at SPain and Thailand for any evidence you want.

    Also the Monarchy is far cheaper than a republic, Italy spends roughly double on their President.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    ].
    wow

    that succesfully changed my mind on the monarchy, well done
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    . If Germany had retained the Kaiser on democratic terms Hitler would never have been able to get full control. Look at SPain and Thailand for any evidence you want.
    There were more factors than that. Itlay retained their monarch but Mussolini still managed to get into power and establish a dictatorship

    (Original post by adamrules247)
    Italy spends roughly double on their President.
    Yes but a president wouldn't have to be completely corrupt.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by derf1)
    There were more factors than that. Itlay retained their monarch but Mussolini still managed to get into power and establish a dictatorship



    Yes but a president wouldn't have to be completely corrupt.
    You are right about Mussolini of course, but that happened because the King had little strength of will. He also supported the fascists as well because they promised to keep his throne intact and was pushed into a corner. However Hitler struck when Hindenburg died, because he died he left the office of president vacants. Therefore Hitler was able to slither up onto Hindenburg's chair, if that has been a Kaiser and he had died then his son would've immediately become the next Kaiser and the oaths of the army (something very important in the German military) would have passed over to him.

    As for your second point I am on about official expenditure my dear chap.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The monarchy is a politically neutered institution which far from being a guardian of democracy has shown itself to be a completly apolitical entity ( to scared to utter a single relevant statement regarding the abuse of its subjects when detention without trial was being lengthened , so much for political strength or even will), whose statements intice its precious subjects (how servile) to use homeopathic medicine.
    To argue that the monarchy should be kept solely for the sake of tradition is to argue that it is fundemently useless and has only the value of an old broken family memorabelia (which is justification enough for keeping it in a family but not as a nation).
    On the other hand the more cynical among us would argue that this feeble, aristocratic and backwards system is what we brits deserve (a people only gets the government it deserves.... type stuff).
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Yay
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A Nay absolutely. Its incorrect to say that they bring in tourists and consequently provide money to the exchequer. Whoever believes that nonsense should not forget that the free-loading royals are never seen by the fee paying public who visit their extravagent castles, palaces and estates. Actually The Palace of Versailles brings in much, much more cash and we all know what happened to the previous incumbents! Log into Republic UK and get the facts about this dreadful dysfunctional dynasty. Incidentally have just viewed a great satirical website. If you want a really good chuckle go to:www.fuggingmonarchy.co.uk Good luck.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingkongo)
    A Nay absolutely. Its incorrect to say that they bring in tourists and consequently provide money to the exchequer. Whoever believes that nonsense should not forget that the free-loading royals are never seen by the fee paying public who visit their extravagent castles, palaces and estates. Actually The Palace of Versailles brings in much, much more cash and we all know what happened to the previous incumbents! Log into Republic UK and get the facts about this dreadful dysfunctional dynasty. Incidentally have just viewed a great satirical website. If you want a really good chuckle go to:www.fuggingmonarchy.co.uk Good luck.
    Did you actually read the thread, and besides this country is more than a bank branch its a society and one in which the Royal Family are more than welcome.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes of course I read the thread. Did you read and understand my reply? The Royal Family are a load of spongers who as far as many many people in this country are concerned are NOT welcome. Why are you so supportive of Hereditary Privilege due to birth? It is time you visited the Republic site and did you have a look at ww.fuggingmonarchy.co.uk
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.