The Student Room Group

Your views on the Monarchy?

..
(edited 7 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

I like the Monarchy and would rather them have democratic power than selfish politicians.

The Monarch cost each taxpayer less than 70p per year, not much when you take into account how many tourists, especially Americans, come to the UK because of them.

Its a good thing all round for the UK and I particularly like some of the younger members who seem a lot more humble and down to Earth in their ways.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 2
Original post by Algorithm69
As a Republican I am strictly against the Monarchy. I believe it is an archaic, undemocratic, and simply embarrassing system to have in a 21st century advanced country such as the UK. The Americans figured this out in 1776.

To make matters worse, not only is the Monarch the Head of State, he/she is also the Head of the State Church. Another ridiculous thing to have in an age of religious freedom and secularism.

So it is quite clear for me: it needs to go. We need to replace it with an elected president.

And don't get me started on the House of Lords.


See I am more than happy to accept Republicanism, however, what really grates me is the stupidity that comes out next - replace the Monarchy with an elected President.

So in effect you want to abolish the Monarchy and in the process destroying tourist revenue, destroying tradition and history, destroying a British institution and replacing it with a more expensive, more useless institution? wtf is the point?

If we abolish the Monarchy, the Prime Minister should assume the role of Head of State.
The Queen waves like a pro.
I'm not fond of them but I will tolerate them if they bring in millions in tourism each year.
Reply 5
Original post by Algorithm69

Also, it would seem you have never heard of the concept of Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances. I would study them.


What makes you think that? I am well aware of this so you can stop with your patronising bull****. The fact is, you would replace a fantastic institution with a more expensive, more useless one. That's the politics of the mad house.

In regards to the stupidity point - replacing something with something that does less but is more expensive is the height of stupidity. When it's not broken, don't fix it.
meh never been much for them, don't really affect me in anyway as in I would never ever ever go to an event just to meet them or watch them.
I hate this tourism argument that always shows itself when defending the monarchy. Get rid of them and let the stupid yanks sleep in the queens bed ( like a 7star hotel!), for a hefty fee of course. This will mean we don't pay anything for the up keep of the many castles and mansions, in fact we might make money on these establishments. But it will never happen cos the middle class love there history....
Original post by screenager2004
I'm not fond of them but I will tolerate them if they bring in millions in tourism each year.

Sums up my thoughts nicely.
Reply 9
Earns money has diplomatic benefits brings in tourists. Win tbh.
Reply 10
The British monarchy are illegitmate, descendents from the Saxe-Coburg Gotha and German nobility. They championed the Nazis, and some members of their family have Jewish ancestry, and as traditionalists of the British Empire build they are members of Masonic Lodges; the Duke of Kent being the most famous of them to date. The Queen is not only the Patron of the Order of the Garter, she is Crowned Head of World Freemasonry, and Head of the Secular Church of England, which is presided over by Protestantism, another form of Freemasonry. She is deferential to the papacy also.

I care not how much she brings in to the country. She obviously stands for the old world and the power structures of that world. She is not just a figure head or embassador for this country, she is a major organiser of political influence throughout the common wealth. She still owns North America!

This kind of wise-crack: "She brings in money and so it's a win for all." is the most blaze attitude. It is better for such people to simply live in ignorance and not try to understand anything at all.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 11
It needs to go, i dont want to see that witch's face on the TV anymore.


Sorry if it offends any pro monarch peoples.


EDIT: this also goes for the saudi monarch, bahrain and any other monarch out there.
(edited 12 years ago)
The tourism argument is poor.

Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK, Windsor Castle is the only royal residence that makes it (in at number 17). The fact that Tower of London (which is number 6 in the list) is so successful, it's an even stronger argument for tourism benefiting us if Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle were vacated also.

If Buckingham Palace was fully opened up to tourists all year round, they could go round every room and courtyard, grounds and the art collection. Things like the changing of the guard can continue.

There are millions of reasons why I don't support the monarchy, but I will just post that one: don't believe the lies about tourism.
Reply 13
Original post by Algorithm69
As a Republican I am strictly against the Monarchy. I believe it is an archaic, undemocratic, and simply embarrassing system to have in a 21st century advanced country such as the UK. The Americans figured this out in 1776.

To make matters worse, not only is the Monarch the Head of State, he/she is also the Head of the State Church. Another ridiculous thing to have in an age of religious freedom and secularism.

So it is quite clear for me: it needs to go. We need to replace it with an elected president.

And don't get me started on the House of Lords.


The monarchy are thoroughly democratic, as they have no vested interests and present no risk of bribery and corruption. The monarchy as head of state ensures that politicians must always carry out the mandated will of the people. They act as an adjudicator that ensures the democratic process is carried out correctly.

A democratically elected head of state however is open to leverage of lobbyists and, more importantly, those who fund their campaigns, and also is able to instate themselves as a dictator.

The worst thing that can happen in any democracy is to give total power to those who would benefit most from its abuse.

This is seen many times around the world, from countless dictators who were once elected, to the "lobbying" based corruption of the US system that serves only to prevent the will of the people being carried out, to the pure Mafia states that exist in Italy and Russia.

Best of all, the monarch has decades of training in being a head of state before taking up the role, rather than the few days that an elected head of state gets, and is advised by unbiased civil servants and has no political affiliation!



The issue of having a national church is an anarchism I agree needs riddance, but then in fact organised religion in general is an anarchism that needs riddance.



The chief failing in the house of Lords is that new lords are appointed by the government, and hence are politicised but not elected. An elected upper house would be better, but an unelected upper house chosen for merit and non-affiliation would be better still.
Original post by Aj12
Earns money has diplomatic benefits brings in tourists. Win tbh.


Earn money? Arguments fly either way as to whether they are profitable or not; figures can be manipulated to show either. Diplomatic benefits? Perhaps, but I don't see how a President would lead us to be any worse off. Tourism? That argument has already been thoroughly debunked above.

Lose tbh.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Teaddict
The fact is, you would replace a fantastic institution with a more expensive, more useless one.


Based on what evidence exactly? It has been argued that a Presidential system shall be much cheaper than the current monarchy system.

The royals aren't profitable (or rather it cannot be argued that they are without a counter argument proving the exact opposite), and nor do they bring in significant tourism revenue.
Reply 16
Original post by manchild007
Earn money? Arguments fly either way as to whether they are profitable or not; figures can be manipulated to show either. Diplomatic benefits? Perhaps, but I don't see how a President would lead us to be any worse off. Tourism? That argument has already been thoroughly debunked above.

Lose tbh.


Monarchy owns land. This land brings in 200M a year. What do you think will happen to that if we get rid of them? They get back the land and the government loses out on revenue.

A president will be pointless, and would not work in the UK system. What would his function be? You can't just bring in a president at the click of your fingers. It would't work in our system.

Anyway this last point answers the democratic point anyone will have made. Discussing this long old debate is pointless. The people support a monarchy and until the day they decide they want something else we should have one. When the day comes the people want a president I will support that, but for now the monarchy should stay.
Original post by Aj12
Monarchy owns land. This land brings in 200M a year. What do you think will happen to that if we get rid of them? They get back the land and the government loses out on revenue.


First the royals are also granted £millions in tax-breaks every year too. Secondly and more importantly, the land of the Crown Estate and indeed the Duchies, does not belong to queen/the monarchy - in the event of a Republic, it shall be turned over to Parliament (and thus the people, or rather us 'commoners'). Thus your argument is moot.

I do agree however, this argument about the monarchy has been DONE TO DEATH on these forums, so I really don't wish to waste more time on it.
(edited 12 years ago)
If the UK monarchy was removed it would lose a lot of economic links with other nations regardless of what you think

1. The royal family meet other royals etc abroad
2. They entertain the elite who invest billions into the UK
3. They all do loads of work, even the Queen has to do paperwork
4. The Queen is too rich to become corrupt whereas globally numerous politicians have taken backhanders
5. The monarchy is the basis of commonwealth. The Queen goes to these meetings every 4 years and is actually a more experienced politician than any in parliament, that is international fact
6. The Monarchy gives us international recognition

it really baffles me, the same people moaning about the monarchy are usually the same people who don't care about drug addicts claiming benefits for their addictions. If you want to moan, moan about them, they're a larger burden in society with no giving back.

The monarchy cost 57p per year and there are a wealth of benefits in return.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 19
Original post by manchild007
First the royals are also granted £millions in tax-breaks every year too. Secondly and more importantly, the land of the Crown Estate and indeed the Duchies, does not belong to queen/the monarchy - in the event of a Republic, it shall be turned over to Parliament (and thus the people, or rather us 'commoners'). Thus your argument is moot.

I do agree however, this argument about the monarchy has been DONE TO DEATH on these forums, so I really don't wish to waste more time on it.


According to what? Genuine interest. Is there a law governing this or is this just what you would assume?

Quick Reply

Latest