Monarchy, Keep them or not? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Lord Waddell
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#41
Report 13 years ago
#41
(Original post by MMA)
The monarchy should be replaced. It is an institution that is ok in undeveloped countries but in a democratic, advanced nation like the UK it serves no value whatsoever.
The tourists are attracted not because of the Royal Family but because of the buildings. Also, many countries without a Royal Family get more tourists than the UK. We should have a presidential system like Germany where the President is a figure head who plays only a small role in politics. Lets stop giving hand-outs and arse licking the richest family in the UK and start making them work like everyone else.
Look over earlier threads on the topic and you'll see that the Royal Family makes a profit for the country through the Crown Estates, whose revenue goes to the Treasury. The monarchy costs £36 million, the Crown Estates bring in something like £200 million, and if the monarchy was abolished that revenue would no longer go to the Treasury. And we don't pay for Prince Charles. The Duchy of Cornwall which is owned by him does that. (I know that wasn't one of your points, but I felt that it had to be said)
0
MMA
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#42
Report 13 years ago
#42
Lord Waddell said:
Look over earlier threads on the topic and you'll see that the Royal Family makes a profit for the country through the Crown Estates, whose revenue goes to the Treasury. The monarchy costs £36 million, the Crown Estates bring in something like £200 million, and if the monarchy was abolished that revenue would no longer go to the Treasury. And we don't pay for Prince Charles. The Duchy of Cornwall which is owned by him does that. (I know that wasn't one of your points, but I felt that it had to be said)
If what you are saying is correct and that the Royal Family makes a profit for the country then why is the tax payer still paying over £60 million a year to these people? Why is it that the Royal Family still don't have to pay certain taxes that the rest of us do? Also most of the land that belongs to the Royal Family should be public land anyway. It is amazing how much public land that this one family has acquired not through work or inheritance put because it has simply been handed out to them.
I also feel strongly that one family should not be proclaimed superior to everyone else in Britian. The sad thing is that the Royal Family still believe that they are superior. Did you read about Price Charles' memo? There is no reason why we can't have a presidential system like most other advanced nations. It is ridiculous that we still have this aristocratic anomaly, you would think that we were still in the 18th century.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#43
Report 13 years ago
#43
(Original post by MMA)
If what you are saying is correct and that the Royal Family makes a profit for the country then why is the tax payer still paying over £60 million a year to these people?
£37 Million actually. And we're not paying them, we're funding them as what is effectively a government department. That isn't a salary, that's a budget - all that money has to be accounted for.

The Crown Estates were gifted to Parliament and the nation by George III (I think) in exchange for the annual civil list payments. God knows why. As far as I can work out, it was because the Crown lands were being given away by monarch after monarch to nobles in exchange for loyalty and were, when given away, growing smaller and less significant as a method of fund-raising. Maybe Georgy-boy thought he'd make a few bob having a definite, fixed income in the form of the civil list. Ha.

Why is it that the Royal Family still don't have to pay certain taxes that the rest of us do? Also most of the land that belongs to the Royal Family should be public land anyway. It is amazing how much public land that this one family has acquired not through work or inheritance put because it has simply been handed out to them.
Most of the Royal land does technically belong to the nation. Windsor Great Park, for example, or Regent's Street. The latter is obviously let so as to generate an income, which is spent on many of the services you take for granted.

I also feel strongly that one family should not be proclaimed superior to everyone else in Britian. The sad thing is that the Royal Family still believe that they are superior. Did you read about Price Charles' memo? There is no reason why we can't have a presidential system like most other advanced nations. It is ridiculous that we still have this aristocratic anomaly, you would think that we were still in the 18th century.
A Presidential System? God no, I'm having my head of government accountable to Parliament thank you very much. America and some dodgy South American dictatorships are the few presidential systems in the world, and look at them. Whether monarchist or republican, the Westminster System is superior.

The Royal Family are not any better than anyone else holding high office. If any members believe they are, then they are in for a shock.
0
Astor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#44
Report 13 years ago
#44
Why is this thread of existance?

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/t121199.html

Here.....this is a very recent one.
0
Astor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#45
Report 13 years ago
#45
I really don't understand how any British citizen can question the monarchy - The Queen poses no threat, and Britain can well and truly afford a traditional, cultural and important institution.

In my life time, I have found that people who oppose the monarchy are people who simply dislike life and like to constantly moan about what we have. Foreigners moan because they are jealous that their history is'nt vast enough to have a monarchy.

Other than the jubilee, we haven't seen them in action recently, but just wait until there is a national crisis such as a war or natural disaster (both still possible) - Thats when the people turn to the King or Queen, because our "respect" blossoms and we need inspiration.

The corrput distasteful media in this country has damanged so much of our national identity and exploited "Britishness" to try and make us racist, and the next, patriotic, that we don't know where we stand. We must boycott the Mirror, Sun and Mail, different point...

...Anyway, its easy to say "get rid" - because you clearly cant construct a half decent argument as to why - or you have never felt "belonging" and experienced "loyalty".

In the 1950's, the country had a very big sense of community spirit and "loyalty" to the crown - this only made society cohesive, now, too many people are thinking for themselves - Humans are irresponsible at this.
0
OppressedMass
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#46
Report 13 years ago
#46
The monarchy's role now is to provide a stern image of unwavering Britishness, to provide someone to look up to as a symbol of our countries values. No matter how discontented we are with politicians the monarchy gives the country a body to rally behind.
0
Astor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#47
Report 13 years ago
#47
Correct - important point - Whenever the people feel distrust towards the government in office, we all know that the Queen, who is "supposedly" higher, is there for us and will act accordingly for the people.

Anyone who has a personal problem with the actualy lady, Liz, should appreciate how hard she works - pushing 81 and she's doing longer working hours than the average student - she is a head of state and she should have retired 16 years ago - I take my hat off to her, I really do. I dont think my respect for any other politician comes close to Er Maj.
0
eleanor.ellis
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#48
Report 13 years ago
#48
Eng·lish ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ngglsh)
adj.
person born in the country of England
"are you English?"
offensive question to anyone who isnt English
0
cottonmouth
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#49
Report 13 years ago
#49
(Original post by DanGrover)
But does that get anywhere near the number of visiters that Buck Palace does? I doubt it. And besides, the Palace of Versailles is famous for historic reasons which are totally separate from the Royal Family - Buck Pal isn't. Compare the number of people who go to Windsor Castle to those that go to Leeds castle - they are similar, only one is a royal residency, and the other isn't.
What is your point? We know that many more people visit royal palaces than non- royal palaces! But only a delusional moron would believe they'd get to see the queen and her family if they decided to visit the palaces. If you are telling me that people go to buckingham palace to see the queen (like puss in boots- a fairytale) then you are also delusional. I just cannot thin of any type of idiot who would think, ooh i might get to see the queen if i go to buks palace. and your suggesting that this happens on an enormous scale, seeing as you think they as the individuals attract a lot of tourism. Get rid of the family- the palace will still be there.it will have history.people will still come to see it.



oh, and not sure if it was you who mentioned the stuff about how our laws and govt would be affected- they would not. the queen has no say in anything- she has to sign, and if she doesnt, they would override her.its just plain old tradition and niceites. Id love it if she actually refused to sign something, cus then it would show everyone just how little power she ahs.which is precisely why the old bag would sign anything- even the banning of their favourite blood sports.
0
cottonmouth
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#50
Report 13 years ago
#50
(Original post by Astor)
I really don't understand how any British citizen can question the monarchy - The Queen poses no threat, and Britain can well and truly afford a traditional, cultural and important institution.

In my life time, I have found that people who oppose the monarchy are people who simply dislike life and like to constantly moan about what we have. Foreigners moan because they are jealous that their history is'nt vast enough to have a monarchy.

Other than the jubilee, we haven't seen them in action recently, but just wait until there is a national crisis such as a war or natural disaster (both still possible) - Thats when the people turn to the King or Queen, because our "respect" blossoms and we need inspiration.

The corrput distasteful media in this country has damanged so much of our national identity and exploited "Britishness" to try and make us racist, and the next, patriotic, that we don't know where we stand. We must boycott the Mirror, Sun and Mail, different point...

...Anyway, its easy to say "get rid" - because you clearly cant construct a half decent argument as to why - or you have never felt "belonging" and experienced "loyalty".

In the 1950's, the country had a very big sense of community spirit and "loyalty" to the crown - this only made society cohesive, now, too many people are thinking for themselves - Humans are irresponsible at this.
I agree with getting rid of the sun and mail- but the mirror is nothing like these two- leave it alone.its the only decent tabloid around.(maybe i'm biased ebcause it supports labour andis quite liberal but anyway....)


In my lifetime the only people who support the monarchy are either as old as my nan (who is anti-royal i might add) or just blinded by the concept of "patriotism" and "natinalism" and "pride" and all of the other types of meaningless words that can be come up with.

Foreigners moan out of jealousy/(envy)? you honestly think that a peson would be like, "oh my country didnt have a royal family, im so jealous that i'oll clal for the abolition of Britains one". The sheer amount of crap that gets loaded on foreign people pisses the hell out of me.

Natinal crises? i'll give you the iraq wa and its repurcussions, including the suicide bombers. Who turned to the queen then? Why should we "respect" them over anyone else? Respect belongs to everyone, equally, unless people do things to hurt others. Because someone is born into the royal family, you believe they deserve our ultimat respect? They are just people. Does this mean you agree with hereditory peers too?

In the 1950's people knew nowhere near as much about the royal family as they do now. they were rarely seen, there were no newspapers to pry into their everyday lives- they were a thing of mystery and intrigue. Now, we know how normal they really are, and how boring, and what terrible taste in decor they have. The intrigue has gone. We know they are just ordinary people lucky enough to be norn into a rich, historic family.
0
OppressedMass
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#51
Report 13 years ago
#51
(Original post by cottonmouth)
I agree with getting rid of the sun and mail- but the mirror is nothing like these two- leave it alone.its the only decent tabloid around.(maybe i'm biased ebcause it supports labour andis quite liberal but anyway....)


In my lifetime the only people who support the monarchy are either as old as my nan (who is anti-royal i might add) or just blinded by the concept of "patriotism" and "natinalism" and "pride" and all of the other types of meaningless words that can be come up with.

Foreigners moan out of jealousy/(envy)? you honestly think that a peson would be like, "oh my country didnt have a royal family, im so jealous that i'oll clal for the abolition of Britains one". The sheer amount of crap that gets loaded on foreign people pisses the hell out of me.

Natinal crises? i'll give you the iraq wa and its repurcussions, including the suicide bombers. Who turned to the queen then? Why should we "respect" them over anyone else? Respect belongs to everyone, equally, unless people do things to hurt others. Because someone is born into the royal family, you believe they deserve our ultimat respect? They are just people. Does this mean you agree with hereditory peers too?

In the 1950's people knew nowhere near as much about the royal family as they do now. they were rarely seen, there were no newspapers to pry into their everyday lives- they were a thing of mystery and intrigue. Now, we know how normal they really are, and how boring, and what terrible taste in decor they have. The intrigue has gone. We know they are just ordinary people lucky enough to be norn into a rich, historic family.

I don't think the appeal of the British monarchy is 'mystery' at all (at least not to Britishers / the Commonwealth) , during the war they were very much in the public eye. And their affairs have always been the affairs of the public.
0
Astor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#52
Report 13 years ago
#52
Correction: YOU think they are boring, YOU think they have terrible taste and YOU think they are "normal".

Cottonmouth, regardless of your banter - us monarchists are sided with the biggest - its here to stay - like it or...........lump it babes.
0
cottonmouth
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#53
Report 13 years ago
#53
(Original post by Astor)
Correction: YOU think they are boring, YOU think they have terrible taste and YOU think they are "normal".

Cottonmouth, regardless of your banter - us monarchists are sided with the biggest - its here to stay - like it or...........lump it babes.

Me and millions of others. You do not think they are normal human beings?Well thats fine!

and to think, i just got neg repped ( again! will people stop doing this i prefer the colour green to red, and they are always unfounded!) with the words "you will grow up one day". Pots and kettles.........
0
zooropa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#54
Report 13 years ago
#54
(Original post by Agent Smith)
This really should be a poll.

I think the monarchy as figureheads are great. They command much more respect than you might think - even George W Bush displays alsmot fawning body language towards the Queen, while he feels no such trepidation around Tony Blair. History - and, regrettably, current affairs - teach us that absolute monarchies can easily be just as bad as any other kind of dictatorship. However, the British style, with the monarch as just a symbol, is fine.

In many republics, someone fulfils the same "impotent figurehead" role, but has to be elected to do so. France and Germany do this, although I'm not sure what the official title is. Were Britain to get rid of her monarchy, I think this need would still be there - someone to open hospitals and offer tea and crumpets to foreign potentates. An elected "figurehead" would not, I feel, command anything like the same respect as the Queen does; it remains to be seen whether even Charles will. Personally I don't think he can ever quite match her, but it is to be hoped that he will play his cards right and follow her example, and retain at least a decent proportion of the international respect, even admiration, she enjoys.

I support the British Monarchy exactly as it is.

France has a semi-presidential system. So the president isn't a mere figurehead and shares executive powers with the prime minister.
0
Astor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#55
Report 13 years ago
#55
(Original post by MMA)
you would think that we were still in the 18th century
And 17th, and 16th, and 15th, and 14th....etc .....etc....

....Hence the barrier that prevents the sudden removal of our monarchy. As history teaches you, over the years, centuries, many people such as yourself have been and gone, and the monarchy, and the loyal monarchist Britons, have survived with good will.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#56
Report 13 years ago
#56
(Original post by cottonmouth)
oh, and not sure if it was you who mentioned the stuff about how our laws and govt would be affected- they would not. the queen has no say in anything- she has to sign, and if she doesnt, they would override her.its just plain old tradition and niceites. Id love it if she actually refused to sign something, cus then it would show everyone just how little power she ahs.which is precisely why the old bag would sign anything- even the banning of their favourite blood sports.
No Minister would ever introduce a piece of legislation against the informal advice of the Queen, so the matter would never come up. Why do you think she bothers meeting weekly with the PM and her Ministers?

If the Queen didn't promulgate a Bill before Parliament, firstly the House of Lords would have to be on side - which would be unlikely. The Bill could probably be forced through by use of the Great Seal without HM's consent, but who would the people rally behind and who would hold the law then to be legitimate - not many.

In my lifetime the only people who support the monarchy are either as old as my nan (who is anti-royal i might add) or just blinded by the concept of "patriotism" and "natinalism" and "pride" and all of the other types of meaningless words that can be come up with.
It seems that up here in Scotland, the only people who don't support the monarchy use Nationalist arguments. I have found these people to be unpleasant, bitter and rather pathetic individuals from my experience.
0
Kew
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#57
Report 13 years ago
#57
(Original post by cottonmouth)
oh, and not sure if it was you who mentioned the stuff about how our laws and govt would be affected- they would not. the queen has no say in anything- she has to sign, and if she doesnt, they would override her.its just plain old tradition and niceites. Id love it if she actually refused to sign something, cus then it would show everyone just how little power she ahs.which is precisely why the old bag would sign anything- even the banning of their favourite blood sports.
The monarchy is an integral part of our parliamental sytem of government; both have evolved over centuries and centuries into what they are today, each affecting the other in its development. This is precisely why it would be so momentous to abolish the monarchy, can't you see? We should be proud to be the first country in the world to have developed this kind of governmental system.

As a result of its long evolution hand-in-hand with parliament, the monarchy works perfectly well; as someone said earlier, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
0
SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#58
Report 13 years ago
#58
And it would affect the way government works, simple because by getting rid of the monarchy would basically force us to get a codified constitution, and that WOULD affect the way it works.
0
SamTheMan
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#59
Report 13 years ago
#59
(Original post by MMA)
The monarchy should be replaced. It is an institution that is ok in undeveloped countries but in a democratic, advanced nation like the UK it serves no value whatsoever.
Basically: pure ignorance of the world. Most modern countries have a monarch.

(Original post by MMA)
The tourists are attracted not because of the Royal Family but because of the buildings. Also, many countries without a Royal Family get more tourists than the UK. We should have a presidential system like Germany where the President is a figure head who plays only a small role in politics. Lets stop giving hand-outs and arse licking the richest family in the UK and start making them work like everyone else.
Germany doesn't have a presidential system, it's a parliamentary system, quite a bit like ours. France and the US are pretty much the only developed countries who do have a presidential system.


The US chose to have a president. That's no reason why the UK would have to get rid of their monarch. A lot of Americans wish they could still have a king/queen, thus the interest in the Royal Family.

Whether the head of state is a corrupt president or a boring old monarch, who cares. At least the monarch represents something.
0
Astor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#60
Report 13 years ago
#60
This entire agument is pathetic, Im sick of seeing it on internet forums. Sad, moaning little insignificants complain about the colour of grass. The majority of us logical Britons want our Queen, and its going to stay that way as long as Britain doesn't give in to these liberal "anomalies" that we often breed.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have any savings?

Yes (173)
67.58%
No (83)
32.42%

Watched Threads

View All