Why Conservatives should be agains the monarchy Watch

So most of us know that there will be a referendum on retaining the monarchy here in the virtual world of TSR. Recent real life polls indicate that conservatives are far more supportive of the monarchy than liberals. As a conservative I feel it is my responsibility to inform my fellow conservatives why they should be republicans.

The tradition, financial, power arguments etc are all irrelevant in modern society as the only real purpose of the monarchy is to display a powerful message. Some have tried to distort that message but I believe the real message conveyed by having a monarchy is certainly not one a conservative can support. Traditional conservative values of hard work, taking care of yourself etc are all a contradiction to the monarchy. The royal family do not get where they are by working hard and they certainly do not take care of themselves. They got to where they were by just turning up at birth. We want to send the message to the people that to get anywhere you have to work for it you can't just laze about and hope for it to happen. Is it a surprize to any of you that we have so many scroungers and people unwilling to try in our country when the biggest scroungers of all the monarchy sit at the helm? The monarchy is a symbol of everything we conservatives resent, and we must join together and vote to rid our virtual country of them once and for all!

(Original post by AYO)
really? i see your point there, but what about other traditional conservative values which focus on preserving traditional symbols of being British such as the monarchy? what happened to "if it aint broke dont fix it?" Conservatives are known for their desire to preserve and keep ideas and values that are known to have stood the test of time, the monarchy is an example of this.

realistically, do you think that getting rid of the monarchy will encourage lazy, unemployed people to go out and look for jobs? especially in the current state of the economy? i highly doubt it.

additionally, i also highly doubt that these "scroungers" as you describe them are unemployed and lazy as a result of the monarchy, really, i think that's just a cheap and low excuse for the high rates of unemployment.

i wonder if you've also considered the effects getting rid of the monarchy would have on this country? financially, the Monarchy generates millions of pounds annually in tourism, historically, as a Conservative, surely you realise the significance of the Monarchy through the years as well as its significance in British history?

you dont appear to have done much research OP

The old conservative definition no longer applies no conservative in their right mind would keep the country as it is now. An intelligent conservative always wishes to make the world the way it should be rather than simply keeping it the way it is. They can do this by preserving conservative economic policies and traditions; however, the monarchy is not a tradition it is an entity which is above all else which just happens to be old, so it is bunched together with traditional British values.

The idea that an active monarchy with powers over the government generate tourism is a joke and there is no evidence to support the claim.

(Original post by gladders)
Indeed, the OP is missing a large part of conservatism - it's not just about cold, hard cash, but about a respect for gradual, gentle change as a more secure means of reform than rapid revolutionary change.

This change has been coming for a while. First we gave land owners the right to elect a government. Then we gave non land owners the right to vote. then women were given the right to vote. Then we allowed Catholics into the monarchy. Then we changed the law so that if a woman was first born she would ascend to the throne before a younger brother. The next step is clearly the end of the monarchy altogether.

(Original post by gladders)
Not necessarily. The essential point is 'if it is not necessary to change, then it is necessary not to change.'

The monarchy works fine, and its removal would not enhance democracy or how the government is run. Therefore, it is not necessary to change.

The people would be able to vote for a head of state therefore it would be better.

(Original post by gladders)
'Conservative' OP doesn't seem to be actually Conservative.

I am conservative on:

Spending
Economic policy
Immigration
Education
Welfare

Please tell me how am I not conservative?

(Original post by FrogInABog)
Careful with your 'Cs' OP, big C for the Conservative Party, small c for conservative opinions!

Just saying, because I think your argument relies on the difference...

Having said that, I'm Conservative and conservative, and I'm pro-monarchy.

God save the Queen!

I know I also missed a t in the title but the thread itself used the correct Cs.

(Original post by Patriot Rich)
Not at all. As a conservative (and Conservative for that matter) property rights are very important. I don't hold anything against people for what they may or may not have inherited. There's plenty of heirs in line for even greater fortunes without a drop of Royal blood, I also have nothing against them. The Royal Family at it's most blunt can be seen as a business, dealing with properties and improving foreign relations amongst many other things. I believe a Royal Family is the best way to manage these functions so there is no need to change. If they were say, exploiting tax systems and expenses (like our elected representatives), I might have a problem.
Also I can't bare to see Generations of History and Tradition go. A Monarchy is far more exciting than any bureaucratic Republic.

The Queen recently invited and dined with dictators who oppose democracy and repress their own people. Do we really want to have a monarch who is at odds with our own views of freedom and democracy?

(Original post by willbarnes)
To me, the Conservative position is based around the principle of each generation merely being caretakers - most fundamentally, we should ensure the world is no worse than it was when our generation took charge of it. This might sound like a fairly simple idea, but it relates to things such as fiscal conservatism, since huge budgetary deficits only hand on a tax burden to the next generation. A more apt summary of that might be the better known phrase which some people have quoted 'if it's not broken, don't fix it'.

Conservatism isn't about keeping things the same, but it is about gradual improvement to build upon society rather than radical, planned 'societies'/economies which normally end up as a disaster (consider the USSR, PRC before Deng's economic liberalisations, etc). The monarchy seems harmless enough, and indeed arguably has many benefits, so I'm in favour of keeping it.

Perhaps the strongest argument against an elected head of state can be summed up in two words - President Blair

Whether he was president or prime minister would it really have mattered?

(Original post by gladders)
Every one of those guests was visiting with the blessing of our elected government. If we were already a republic they would have been here under different circumstances.

If it were done by the current government it would cost them political capital so they would refrain from it welcome to politics 101.

(Original post by gladders)
If it's that simple, why not have absolutely everything elected - including judges and binmen?

When we have the time and resources to do so then let's do it but till then we should focus on the positions that are doable such as the head of state.