Why exactly do we have a Royal Family... Watch

This discussion is closed.
Borderline
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#61
Report 7 years ago
#61
(Original post by tamimi)
Woah guys, you're getting me wrong. I'm not in any way encouraging the removal of the monarchy. At all.

"Why do we have a Royal Family" was a genuine question, not a stab at their ways.

Financially, I just don't think they should be spending as much as they do. That is all.
Haha, no you didn't understand me! I understand you don't want to disband the monarchy. What I was pointing out is that they don't spend a lot of the Government's money! Where have you got this impression that they unnecessarily spend money? (Would you mind sending me the link please?)
0
tamimi
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#62
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#62
(Original post by Borderline)
Haha, no you didn't understand me! I understand you don't want to disband the monarchy. What I was pointing out is that they don't spend a lot of the Government's money! Where have you got this impression that they unnecessarily spend money? (Would you mind sending me the link please?)
I actually never mentioned Government Money. Just money in general.

Regardless where the money came from, as someone had pointed out earlier that the Jubilee Boat for example was Privately funded, does not make it less wasteful.
0
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#63
Report 7 years ago
#63
(Original post by tamimi)
I actually never mentioned Government Money. Just money in general.

Regardless where the money came from, as someone had pointed out earlier that the Jubilee Boat for example was Privately funded, does not make it less wasteful.
If the money is not from taxes or other kind of public subscription, it's nobody's business how much or how it's spent (unless, of course, used to influence politics).
0
JacobW
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#64
Report 7 years ago
#64
(Original post by tamimi)
From my understanding of basic British History, we went quite a while without a monarch system during which we were doing "fine" to some extent.
And then we adopted the monarch system back on, only that this time the Royal family would have far less jurisdiction than it did - Leaving most of the power to the elected members of the people. I.e. the democratic system that we live in today.
That's not basic; that's fundamentally mistaken. We were anything but "fine" during the eleven years of the interregnum. A stable constitutional arrangement proved impossible to attain; the country veered between anarchy and despotism; Puritan nutters banned the celebration of Christmas; and after a half-arsed attempt to set up a military dictatorship we restored the constitution precisely as it was before the Civil War.

It wasn't untill the Glorious Revolution in 1688 that the recognisably modern parliamentary system of government emerged, and even then it took some time, and our politics wasn't anything like democratic for another two hundred or so years. For much of the 18th century general elections were a farce, with the small proportion of people who had the vote having their judgement rendered irrelevant by a thoroughly defective representative system and ubiquitous corruption.
0
Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#65
Report 7 years ago
#65
(Original post by Borderline)
:confused:

So to reiterate what I said in my other two posts, and you still have not answered - do you have any evidence for your claims? No.... You don't at all.
I don't think you quite got the message; the evidence is all around.
0
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#66
Report 7 years ago
#66
(Original post by Martyn*)
I don't think you quite got the message; the evidence is all around.
He got the message, but your reply is not evidence; it's an assertion, nothing more, and therefore dismissable.

By your logic I could say that the people of American are 'brainwashed' into republicanism by the powers that be to prevent them from seeing the light and adopting monarchy.

Know why I don't argue this? Because it's a nonsense. But even more than that - I have about as much 'evidence' for it as you do.
1
Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#67
Report 7 years ago
#67
(Original post by gladders)
He got the message, but your reply is not evidence; it's an assertion, nothing more, and therefore dismissable.

By your logic I could say that the people of American are 'brainwashed' into republicanism by the powers that be to prevent them from seeing the light and adopting monarchy.

Know why I don't argue this? Because it's a nonsense. But even more than that - I have about as much 'evidence' for it as you do.
What have I wrote that is an assertion? Please point one out and we'll see if we can resolve it.
0
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#68
Report 7 years ago
#68
(Original post by Martyn*)
What have I wrote that is an assertion? Please point one out and we'll see if we can resolve it.
Claiming that the royal family suppressing the people and keeping them under control as 'self-evident'. That is an assertion.
0
Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#69
Report 7 years ago
#69
(Original post by gladders)
Claiming that the royal family suppressing the people and keeping them under control as 'self-evident'. That is an assertion.
I did not mention the word 'suppress'. I did not even use the words 'under control'. What I wrote (to the effect) was that the Royal Family together with the media, and the institutions, etc, do what they do to maintain the status quo, and that part of this effort involves a certain degree of cohersion and propaganda.
0
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#70
Report 7 years ago
#70
(Original post by Martyn*)
I did not mention the word 'suppress'. I did not even use the words 'under control'. What I wrote (to the effect) was that the Royal Family together with the media, and the institutions, etc, do what they do to maintain the status quo, and that part of this effort involves a certain degree of cohersion and propaganda.
And that is an assertion. And don't try to backpedal - you explicitly used the words 'brainwashing' and 'propaganda' earlier, making a claim that people who support the monarchy in incapable of thinking for themselves.
0
cl_steele
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#71
Report 7 years ago
#71
(Original post by nmudz_009)
Gives the image of the UK false prestige when viewed by other countries around the world. Also helps maintain current relations with countries like Canada, new zealand and Australia who still consider the queen as their monarch.
i believe thats done by the commonwealth, the queen as there head of state is relatively irrelevant .. plus Australia for one, possibly canada i cant quite remember, are planning on trying to ditch her soon.. the auzzies and canadians have never forgiven her, or more precisely her rep there, for dismissing their parliaments :rolleyes:
0
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#72
Report 7 years ago
#72
(Original post by cl_steele)
i believe thats done by the commonwealth, the queen as there head of state is relatively irrelevant .. plus Australia for one, possibly canada i cant quite remember, are planning on trying to ditch her soon..
Australia had a referendum in 1999 - the monarchists won comfortably from a position of monetary and media disadvantage.

the auzzies and canadians have never forgiven her, or more precisely her rep there, for dismissing their parliaments :rolleyes:
What examples are these? If you're referring to Gough/Whitlam, the Governor-General acted constitutionally, and any president worth his salt would have acted in the same manner.
0
cl_steele
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#73
Report 7 years ago
#73
(Original post by gladders)
Australia had a referendum in 1999 - the monarchists won comfortably from a position of monetary and media disadvantage.



What examples are these? If you're referring to Gough/Whitlam, the Governor-General acted constitutionally, and any president worth his salt would have acted in the same manner.
that may be, doesnt mean theyre not planning another vote on the matter though..

well canada there are 3 examples in the last few years and australia i believe was in 1975. oh yes i dont dispute that i think it was more point of principle that irked them, consider it like Mr Obama dissolving the British parliament even if it was acting in a quesitonable manner people wouldnt be amused with a foreign chap intereferring in their politics would they? by no means is this the unilateral view though but it is held by a fair few auzzies, cant speak so much for the canadians though.
0
emmaaa88
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#74
Report 7 years ago
#74
They bring in so much money in tourism as others have said

Personally, I think they're sort of irrelevent in terms of government and rule. However they serve their roles as ambassadors, and I really admire the Queen who I think is an amazing woman. She makes a great figurehead, I'd rather have her as a kind of neutral icon than just be left with the Prime Minister as the sole figurehead when the PM will invariably cause controversy some time or other.
0
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#75
Report 7 years ago
#75
(Original post by cl_steele)
that may be, doesnt mean theyre not planning another vote on the matter though..

well canada there are 3 examples in the last few years and australia i believe was in 1975. oh yes i dont dispute that i think it was more point of principle that irked them, consider it like Mr Obama dissolving the British parliament even if it was acting in a quesitonable manner people wouldnt be amused with a foreign chap intereferring in their politics would they? by no means is this the unilateral view though but it is held by a fair few auzzies, cant speak so much for the canadians though.
But it wasn't the Queen dismissing the Australian PM - it was the Australian Governor-General - who was Australian too. Moreover, the people of Australia endorsed his move in the ensuing general election.

I'm curious as to what Canadian examples you are referring to?
0
cl_steele
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#76
Report 7 years ago
#76
(Original post by gladders)
But it wasn't the Queen dismissing the Australian PM - it was the Australian Governor-General - who was Australian too. Moreover, the people of Australia endorsed his move in the ensuing general election.

I'm curious as to what Canadian examples you are referring to?
yes i know, as i said in my original post the queens representitive there.
again as i said before i dont dispute that, the point i was trying to get across was that some still resent a notional foreign entity holding such powers in their country. but hey thats just the view ive gauged from the Auzzies i know.

http://www.infowars.com/queen-dissol...me-in-3-years/
0
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#77
Report 7 years ago
#77
I see what you mean, but if that's the attitude of the Australian people it does some fallacious to me. It's separate from the discussion in the UK of course, which is more to do with the actual utility of the office.

(also that link you sent doesn't appear to be working...)
0
munazic483
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#78
Report 7 years ago
#78
I personally don't think we should have a monarchy.

I don't, frankly, know enough to give a hugely in depth opinion, I jsut don't agree on principle with the idea that someone is born with more theoretical power than the Prime Minister elected by the citizens of our "democracy."

I am aware of the financial arguments and counter-arguments and don't really know what to believe. What I do know is that I don't actually care if we get some menial financial gain.

I know of the history of Oliver Cromwell, I am also sensible enough to realise that it's completely irrelevant. We are not living in the same world that the Roundheads did, I don't think that getting rid of the monarchy now would have anything like that impact.

Personally I believe that I am a British citizen rather than one of Liz' subjects.

That said I have nothing in particular against our Queen. Charles, well...
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#79
Report 7 years ago
#79
'Quite a while'- 11 years between 1649 and 1660. During which time we had Oliver Cromwell who get rid of many of our holidays and turned us into the emotionally screwed up nation that we are compared with our European neighbours.

Cromwell is sadly still an influence today.
0
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#80
Report 7 years ago
#80
Ah! It is now. Well, dissolution of the Canadian Parliament after the loss of a confidence motion is pretty standard, it paves the way for a general election.

The earlier suspension was a move to allow passions to cool and ensure the upcoming attempt to remove the government from power had actually real welly behind it. It turned out that it didn't.

At no time does such moves block the opposition's attempts to remove the government - merely cools passions down.

Moreover, it would still be an issue under a republic, albeit with a lot of partisanship on the part of the Head of State.
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

How did your AQA A-level Psychology Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (137)
22.95%
The paper was reasonable (262)
43.89%
Not feeling great about that exam... (108)
18.09%
It was TERRIBLE (90)
15.08%

Watched Threads

View All