Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Monarchy:

    Before attempting to abolish the only British thing that remains in Britain(The Queen & her Corgies), Britain should deal with its society from the bottom first.

    Without a queen and the national pride that goes with the 'queen and country', the only factor binding the social fabric of an already socially apathetic Britiain will be lost and hard to replace.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'd love to see it disappear. People are so desperate to point out that the British Monarchy is just a figurehead role, that we needn't worry about, and their 'political' influence is zero. They also always try to pull on the 'it attracts tourists' garbage.

    But if the Queen and the Monarchy were to be overthrown/removed, would people honestly cease to visit Buckingham Palace? Err... no. It's still an artistically marvellous building, and can become a museum of the British Past. People still flock to visit sites of the German Monarchs, or the French Monarchs, for instance, despite them being long-gone.

    And if their political role is so useless, why bother with them at all? They are surely just a black-hole for tax-money and 'inherited' wealth, that belongs to the people of the nation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Our Queen is what holds this country together, I'd die for Queen and country but I'm dammed if I'd die for Gorden Brown and I would take up arms against anyone who tried to remove her.
    Any such attempts would provoke a civil war.

    God save the Queen.

    Arthur.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Starom)
    I'd love to see it disappear. People are so desperate to point out that the British Monarchy is just a figurehead role, that we needn't worry about, and their 'political' influence is zero. They also always try to pull on the 'it attracts tourists' garbage.

    But if the Queen and the Monarchy were to be overthrown/removed, would people honestly cease to visit Buckingham Palace? Err... no. It's still an artistically marvellous building, and can become a museum of the British Past. People still flock to visit sites of the German Monarchs, or the French Monarchs, for instance, despite them being long-gone.

    And if their political role is so useless, why bother with them at all? They are surely just a black-hole for tax-money and 'inherited' wealth, that belongs to the people of the nation.
    Did you even bother to read the rest of the thread? Money isn’t an issue, they more than pay for themselves through tax and the crown estate.

    Our country is more than just some notes on a bank balance, its a living breathing society that the Queen and the Royal family are an essential and welcome part of.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ^ I did, but the way people dismissed the argument didn't really make sense. And exactly - the 'crown estate' - that is property and land that oughtn't belong to them.

    And let's be honest and realistic here - the rich don't pay nearly enough tax. At all. The system is ludicrously exploitative of the lower-incomes, but people on higher-incomes can mostly pay the tax with ease - it barely dents into their ludicrous wealth.

    And may I ask you what exactly the Queen and the Royal family do that make them 'essential', in your opinion?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Starom)
    ^ I did, but the way people dismissed the argument didn't really make sense. And exactly - the 'crown estate' - that is property and land that oughtn't belong to them.

    And let's be honest and realistic here - the rich don't pay nearly enough tax. At all. The system is ludicrously exploitative of the lower-incomes, but people on higher-incomes can mostly pay the tax with ease - it barely dents into their ludicrous wealth.

    And may I ask you what exactly the Queen and the Royal family do that make them 'essential', in your opinion?
    The rich pay more than enough tax, its hardly fair that the top 1% of estates pick up the tab for 25% of government spending when they are the least likely to use the spending black holes of welfare, the NHS and education.

    The crown estate is property of the monarchs; the agreement with the government is that they get the revenue from the estate in return for the civil list.

    Essential is the wrong word, nothing bar food water and shelter is essential. But I think they have a good role in our society, one which couldn’t be replaced by a president. We get a whole family whose entire lives are dedicated to the service of the nation, people do come out on the streets when the Queen is out and about but they don’t for our elected politicians unless there going to throw eggs at them. I like having a head of state which is above the party political morass which everybody can support, unless you are a republican or communist you really have no political grounds not to support the monarchy. There also a living link with our commonwealth partners, the Queen is held in such high respect by many of these leaders that is does our country good. It was the Queen which held the Commonwealth together when Thatcher wouldn’t call sanctions against South Africa.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Keep.

    Build our empire back up. Lets go and get france and Germany. Then we can move on to Palestine and take it over.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The queen is well good she's just hated by jealous anti-British povos.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    The rich pay more than enough tax, its hardly fair that the top 1% of estates pick up the tab for 25% of government spending when they are the least likely to use the spending black holes of welfare, the NHS and education.

    The crown estate is property of the monarchs; the agreement with the government is that they get the revenue from the estate in return for the civil list.

    Essential is the wrong word, nothing bar food water and shelter is essential. But I think they have a good role in our society, one which couldn’t be replaced by a president. We get a whole family whose entire lives are dedicated to the service of the nation, people do come out on the streets when the Queen is out and about but they don’t for our elected politicians unless there going to throw eggs at them. I like having a head of state which is above the party political morass which everybody can support, unless you are a republican or communist you really have no political grounds not to support the monarchy. There also a living link with our commonwealth partners, the Queen is held in such high respect by many of these leaders that is does our country good. It was the Queen which held the Commonwealth together when Thatcher wouldn’t call sanctions against South Africa.
    Considering that those 1% of estates own vast swaths of land, and have colossal incomes/wealth, I think it is perfectly fair that they are expected to pay the most taxes. They simply don't pay enough. The average man/woman has to sacrifice their already quite laughable income in order to keep the government afloat, whereas (say) the 25% paid by the wealthy still leaves them with ludicrous riches.

    By why should it be their property? What have they ever done to deserve such riches? Have they worked hard? Please. Have they endlessly held up the fabric of our society? Not unless you hold inbred-ignoramusses such as Philip as your rolemodels (and my goodness if people do).

    So you like to have a head of state that just 'is' - not voted fairly by the population, nor the head of state for anything other than 'divine-right'? I find that idea abhorrent - the people should always choose their leaders. It's not democracy otherwise. And brilliant - the Queen made a half-hearted attempt and hushing the pro-apartheid movement, by holding together the 'Commonwealth'. Great. As if this country isn't already mocked around the world for it's abysmal imperialist record...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Starom)
    It's still an artistically marvellous building, and can become a museum of the British Past.
    You honestly believe a palace, with the some of the largest and grandest state rooms in London would become a museum? A building which houses offices and staff solely designed for the role of head of state?

    Would you also be happy to sack the various employees of the Royal Household, kicking them out of their accommodation in the process to make way for this museum you speak of? I'm surprised that you equality types would be happy to sack workers to please your idealistic ventures.

    And if their political role is so useless, why bother with them at all?
    Should the German people not bother with their president, then? He has practically the same role/powers as the Queen. By the way, I would hardly consider the Royal Assent 'useless'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, I certainly do! ^_^ Manor houses across the UK have easily been converted into National Hertitage sites, which are open for public access. As for the employees - the upkeep of the building, to keep it in condition for public view, will still require labour. I think you're just attempting to use a typical equality belief against me, without even beginning to consider the main idea I suggested.

    And most certainly not - he was, at least, democractically elected. The latter line of my post was included as an attempt to pre-empt the usual pro-Monarchy argument (that I've encountered, at any rate) that 'they barely do anything - why bother getting rid of them? It's not worth the upheaval, considering that their role is so trivial'.

    Please, feel free to explain to me why they're so useful, in that case. I still fail to see how a 'divinely placed', 'I-was-born-into-power'-ruler is any of any positive use to any nation of forward-thinking, progressive individuals.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Starom)
    Yes, I certainly do! ^_^ Manor houses across the UK have easily been converted into National Hertitage sites, which are open for public access.
    Yes, some Elizabethan manor in Surrey and you may have a point. But, Buckingham Palace, probably one of the most famous buildings in the world, will become the official residence of the next head of state, and anyone who disbelieves this is deluded. It has been convention, throughout most of Europe for post-monarchical presidents to take up the former official royal residence as their presidential palace (see France, Austria, Russia, and more).

    Buckingham Palace has facilities designed for state entertaining and state functions (and the largest and grandest in London - possibly Europe, or at least on par). Not to mention the fact that its offices and non-state rooms are already modeled to carry out the behind the scenes work of the head of state.

    Do you honestly believe our head of state is going to share 10 Downing Street with the head of government, or place him/herself in some substandard property, whilst his/her counterparts are living and entertaining in much more scale and grandeur? Or if we go down the US route, can you really see the head of state/government squeezing hundreds of guests into 10 Downing Street's tiny dining room?

    As for the employees - the upkeep of the building, to keep it in condition for public view, will still require labour.
    That's probably a quarter (probably less) of the royal household. You're hardly going to need footman, equerries, chauffeurs, chefs, mews staff and employees who deal with the administrative aspect of the head of state's duties if the palace becomes a museum.

    Well, you bang on about the ordinary working man/woman, yet you are happy to see a large group of individuals out of a job and out of a place to live to progress your idealistic views.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yey.
    The monarchy is a form on continuity of authority in the UK, which is needed to balance the discontinuity of government. One needs the other and I don't think the country would do very well without government.
    The way I understand it is that monarchy has complete power, they can veto any decision made by parliament. However, this is checked by the power of parliament (who represent us), as if the monarchy, at the moment the Queen, does veto a decision, parliament would easily be able to remove the monarchy. The fact that we are even talking about whether the monarchy exists shows this power.
    I doubt the monarchy cost the taxpayer that much money, they may even make money (some figures would be ideal). They do draw many tourists and add to the appeal to many for visiting the UK as well as the visits to their estates and associated businesses. The monarchy thus also employ many people, which is hardly a bad thing.
    Even if the monarchy do cost us money, you could say it is well spent. As well as being a figurehead and as a continuity, they are great ambassadors for this country (O.K. Prince Phillip does go too far sometimes). They help hold the Commonwealth together, which I think we benefit from and help foster better relations with other countries and people. They are also generally well liked.
    As for having a president instead (an elected monarch style president), I don't think it would be a good idea. The Royal Family aren't brilliant, but their morals are on the whole good and it seems that passing these morals on is ingrained in them, unlike an elected president. I wouldn't trust the population of this country to elect someone appropriate anyway. We have a government, which are in all but name more powerful than the monarchy, so why bother replacing them.
    Overall, I think that the monarchy are a asset and a benefit to this country. They only have power really in name (the government even writes the honours list) and put this country on a good footing. There is also the tradition, which personally I like and they help make us unique.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Starom)
    And most certainly not - he was, at least, democractically elected.
    So you like to have a head of state that just 'is' - not voted fairly by the population, nor the head of state for anything other than 'divine-right'? I find that idea abhorrent - the people should always choose their leaders. It's not democracy otherwise.
    Please do enlighten me as to what possible purpose it would serve, other than ivory tower idealism, to spend vast amounts of taxpayers' money (yes, that of those poor workers you describe), upheave our constitution and act as a marketing department for the far-right (by removing British traditions and ceremonies) to install an elected, but likely ceremonial, head of state? From a practical point of view it would be a completely unnecessary and expensive (both tangibly and intangibly) activity at this moment in time.

    The monarchy shouldn't be free from reasonable alteration and criticism, but I fail to see how the droning, idealistic mantra of 'democracy' is credible grounds for the actions I listed above, considering the current individual with all the real power in Britain is elected, oh wait...

    If democracy encompasses majority rule (alongside other, juxtaposed aspects), then most polls would suggest that the will of the majority of this country is to retain the monarchy. Should the population of a democracy not have the ability to agree (by majority decision) to replace the system in dispute and initiate elections for a new system, before such an action is carried out? If a referendum decided to retain the monarchy, would you not accept this?

    Please, feel free to explain to me why they're so useful, in that case. I still fail to see how a 'divinely placed', 'I-was-born-into-power'-ruler is any of any positive use to any nation of forward-thinking, progressive individuals.
    Sorry, but the sound bites you have just spouted are usually used as euphemisms for Marxism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If the country was in a position where the monarchy was seriously infringing upon the rights of parliament, threatening to tear apart social harmony or something equally as abhorrent, I'd be marching on Buckingham Palace tomorrow.

    However, as this is never going to happen, I'm happy to say Yey. The Queen has served this country very well over the course of her reign, and I believe she sets a good example for us all to follow.

    I can very much see where republican arguments are coming from, but how do we propose to replace the monarch?

    The Prime Minister already has sufficient powers as head of government, so presumably the powers of a head of state could not and should not be transferred to him/her.

    So we'd need an elected head of state. Who would this be? A partisan former politician, banker, civil servant or other establishment figure?

    Where would they reside? Would we put them up at expense in a palace? Perhaps...

    The role between nationality and monarchy is also important, are we really to change something that helps bind us together as a nation for the sake of what, satisfying some 'democratic' and republican ideal? I don't think so.

    To pick up on Starom's point, yes, it does seem rather reprehensible in 2010 that some people feel by right of birth 'ordained' to rule over us. Personally I don't find that prospect threatening, as the powers of the monarch are severely limited. Don't elected old Etonians also feel the same birth 'right'? Is there a difference between feeling this 'entitlement' but seeking to use it through democratic means? If so, then it's not the feeling of entitlement that's wrong, it's the way in which people seek to use it.

    If we look at the USSR, 'entitlement' and 'birth right' soon became entrenched in the Soviet system. Sons and daughters of party officials went to their own schools, took all positions of responsibility and carried on the Tsarist system through the prism of communism. Entitlement is not something exclusive to monarchy.

    God Save The Queen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FinishHim!)
    Please do enlighten me as to what possible purpose it would serve, other than ivory tower idealism, to spend vast amounts of taxpayers' money (yes, that of those poor workers you describe), upheave our constitution and act as a marketing department for the far-right (by removing British traditions and ceremonies) to install an elected, but likely ceremonial, head of state? From a practical point of view it would be a completely unnecessary and expensive (both tangibly and intangibly) activity at this moment in time.
    Wait - I'm not talking about 'removing British traditions and ceremonies' from our society, unless the Monarchy is the only thing left that you'd consider such a tradition. I'm simply talking about removing an unecessary and laughable 'Monarch' from power, in order to finally bring this country into the 21st Century.

    Monarchies are so outdated - the ideal of having a 'King/Queen to lead the people' surely sounds bizarre. At least having a *voted* president is one that the people will actually want to follow, as opposed to some fool who is simply there by divine right.

    (Original post by FinishHim!)

    If democracy encompasses majority rule (alongside other, juxtaposed aspects), then most polls would suggest that the will of the majority of this country is to retain the monarchy. Should the population of a democracy not have the ability to agree (by majority decision) to replace the system in dispute and initiate elections for a new system, before such an action is carried out? If a referendum decided to retain the monarchy, would you not accept this?
    Actually, I would. If a referendum was held, with informed debate, and the Monarchy was found to be the popular consensus among the people, then fine. It doesn't mean I will suddenly become an advocate of the Queen and co, but it does mean that I am living with the fact that the Royal Family is definitely wanted by the majority of the population.

    (Original post by FinishHim!)

    Sorry, but the sound bites you have just spouted are usually used as euphemisms for Marxism.
    What, in that I believe people who should move away from the Medieval ideas of Monarchs and divine-rights are Communists, now? That's surely ridiculous.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Starom)
    Wait - I'm not talking about 'removing British traditions and ceremonies' from our society, unless the Monarchy is the only thing left that you'd consider such a tradition. I'm simply talking about removing an unecessary and laughable 'Monarch' from power, in order to finally bring this country into the 21st Century.
    There is nothing outdated about the Monarchy, the monarchy is a modern institution which has evolved over hundreds of years. I hate it when people say ‘this is the 21st centaury.. blah blah blah’, it doesn’t mean a thing. I may as well say ‘this isn’t acceptable because it’s a Wednesday’

    Monarchies are so outdated - the ideal of having a 'King/Queen to lead the people' surely sounds bizarre. At least having a *voted* president is one that the people will actually want to follow, as opposed to some fool who is simply there by divine right.
    It’s not bizarre; there are a great many countries around the world which are constitutional monarchies. Only the people who have voted for that politician follow that politician, so possibly 51% of about 60% of the population who actually vote. The Monarch can be supported by everybody, unless you’re a communist or republican you have no real political grounds to oppose the monarchy since there political views are unknown.

    Actually, I would. If a referendum was held, with informed debate, and the Monarchy was found to be the popular consensus among the people, then fine. It doesn't mean I will suddenly become an advocate of the Queen and co, but it does mean that I am living with the fact that the Royal Family is definitely wanted by the majority of the population.
    Polls have shown the majority want the Monarchy, and any informed debate would end up with a victory for the monarchists anyway

    What, in that I believe people who should move away from the Medieval ideas of Monarchs and divine-rights are Communists, now? That's surely ridiculous.
    Divine-right never took hold in Britain, it was a continental idea. The modern constitutional monarchy is far from Medieval


    You’ve actually said nothing here, apart from 'I think we should have an elected head of state'. I want to know why, what tangible advantages this has over a constitutional monarchy, do you have any practical reason above republican dogma. I direct you back to my last essay style post, which no-one has actually come back too yet.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    There is nothing outdated about the Monarchy, the monarchy is a modern institution which has evolved over hundreds of years. I hate it when people say ‘this is the 21st centaury.. blah blah blah’, it doesn’t mean a thing. I may as well say ‘this isn’t acceptable because it’s a Wednesday’
    The idea is incredibly outdated. Where else would you have barons, sirs, lords and ladies? It honestly sounds like something from the 1700/1800s. We still seem to have a power-base for people with big titles and big estate, when really we have no reason to consider them anything great.

    (Original post by Renner)

    It’s not bizarre; there are a great many countries around the world which are constitutional monarchies. Only the people who have voted for that politician follow that politician, so possibly 51% of about 60% of the population who actually vote. The Monarch can be supported by everybody, unless you’re a communist or republican you have no real political grounds to oppose the monarchy since there political views are unknown.
    Many great countries? Please, give me some examples.

    Can a person not support the monarchy without doing so as a result of political dogma? I decided several years ago that the monarchy was not an institution that has any place in society, long before I had any major political affiliation.

    (Original post by Renner)

    Polls have shown the majority want the Monarchy, and any informed debate would end up with a victory for the monarchists anyway
    Hardly - I'd consider any well informed debate to result in a victory for anti-Monarchists.

    (Original post by Renner)
    Divine-right never took hold in Britain, it was a continental idea.
    You're wrong there, I'm afraid:

    "Such doctrines are, in the English speaking world, largely associated with the House of Tudor and the early House of Stuart in Britain and the theology of the Caroline divines who held their tenure at the pleasure of James I of England (VI of Scotland), Charles I and Charles II." (source: Wikipedia on 'Divine Right of Kings)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Starom)
    You're wrong there, I'm afraid:

    "Such doctrines are, in the English speaking world, largely associated with the House of Tudor and the early House of Stuart in Britain and the theology of the Caroline divines who held their tenure at the pleasure of James I of England (VI of Scotland), Charles I and Charles II." (source: Wikipedia on 'Divine Right of Kings)
    You've used a website that anyone can edit and called it a 'source'. In reality that is a source of nothing. But still, you're the one who is wrong on the point presented - and indeed even if that quite was correct, it would not in any way suggest the argument you have made is correct - I suggest you read it more closely.

    The Stewarts were the only ones to seriously propose the Divine Right of Kings - few others in England at the time believed it, and unsurprisingly the Stewarts were overthrown twice - once during the Civil War and then permanently in the Glorious Revolution for this sort of behaviour - the latter clearly entrenching constitutional monarchy forevermore.

    The Stewarts may have desired to be recognised as carrying Divine right, but it was never permitted. The English legal system completely rejected that belief - the monarchy as a body subject to other forces has its roots in the very beginnings of British history - and nobody was willing to hand British liberties away.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Starom)
    The idea is incredibly outdated. Where else would you have barons, sirs, lords and ladies? It honestly sounds like something from the 1700/1800s. We still seem to have a power-base for people with big titles and big estate, when really we have no reason to consider them anything great.
    Most of Europe.. The Aristocracy of Germany still exists, as in Poland and various other European republics.

    Many great countries? Please, give me some examples.
    Antigua and Barbuda
    Australia
    Bahamas
    Barbados
    Belize
    Canada
    Grenada
    Jamaica
    New Zealand
    Papua
    Solomon Islands
    St. Kitts-Nevis
    St. Lucia
    St. Vincent and the Grenadines
    Tuvalu
    Samoa
    Lesotho
    Malaysia
    Swaziland
    Tonga
    Bahrain
    Belgium
    Bhutan
    Cambodia
    Denmark
    Japan
    Jordan
    Kuwait
    Liechtenstein
    Luxembourg
    Monaco
    Morocco
    Nepal
    Norway
    Spain
    Sweden
    Thailand
    The Netherlands

    Can a person not support the monarchy without doing so as a result of political dogma? I decided several years ago that the monarchy was not an institution that has any place in society, long before I had any major political affiliation.
    Yes but why

    Hardly - I'd consider any well informed debate to result in a victory for anti-Monarchists.
    Well I have managed to turn several anti’s to pro’s over the years, one on this very thread.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.