Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Get Rid of Monarchy Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should we get rid of the monarchy?
    Yes
    41.07%
    No
    58.93%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    The monarchy is an outdated concept that needs abolished, it sends out a signal to the rest of the world that we are fine with un-elected people holding the highest positions of authority in our society. There also used as a way to make people feel guilt tripped into spending money on a party to celebrate the fact that some old ladies been in her job for such a long period of time as it would be unpatriotic and treasonous not do so.

    We need an elected head of state who is directly accountable to the people, rather than leaving the position to the woman who's ancestors were warmongering of doom across these islands. Keeping the Queen encourages the traditionalist thinking that will doom this country like the idea that their was once some glorious empire we should yearn after.

    At a time when people hate benefit scroungers, why do they fawn over the biggest one - Elizabeth Windsor and her extended brood of taxpayer funded kiddy winks. That's before we get onto how bad the royal nepotist culture is for society.
    For me the monarchy is a symbol of a civilised state which is stable and united. Look at some societies which are a republic: Syria, Iraq etc. They have conflict within there own country to the point that it is a international emergency. Politically, the queen isn't involved to that much of an extent, only with calling upon PMs and being the last link in a chain to passing a law or policy. With the elected head of state, are you saying a dictator? and for them to be accountable for the people, no one person can represent everyone - if they have a public school education they wont be representing 93% of the population, if they are male they are representing only 49% of the population and if they are born-british then there is 78% of the country still being unrepresented. We need a democracy with a fair political system and the monarchy would be an important part of that as it is a figurehead and without it, there is a chance society will become unstable.
    just my views.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leondrip)
    Just to request before I counter-argue:

    - I'd like to see the breakdown of those polls, I think you'll find the turnout is incredibly low.
    Well, it's perfectly within your power to investigate further. But the consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of the status quo. The strongest you can argue is that it's a lethargic unwillingness to rock the boat rather than a universal enthusiasm for monarchy, but I can't see that changing unless an actual material benefit of switching to a republic can be demonstrated.

    I'm mystified how you could even go as far to call it the 'magic' of the monarchy. Definitely from what I've seen here, and even in a common sense perspective, a majority complain about how the Queen lives in luxury, when many people do not have the money for basic care.
    And how is that the Queen's fault? There are plenty of other people in the country who also live in luxury and they won't disappear with the removal of the monarchy. The situation for the Head of State themselves won't change either, as the incumbent would like be rich, and even if he isn't he would be offered accommodation, transport and other accouterments fitting to their office.

    I'm not suggesting that the Queen should live in Luton. I'm suggesting that rather than an entourage, and large ceremonies which cost a large amount of money, she attends meets and greets as normal people do.
    But those large ceremonies are expected of her. She's the Queen. You're completely missing the point of why people like the monarchy. It's precisely because of those things you question.

    We have plenty of politicians who 'meets and greets as normal people do', and we bloody despise them.

    I still agree that she should live in a Palace, as the Queen does need to be 'aloof'. However I find it ridiculous that she rarely ever goes out to greet her public, and rather delivers all of her messages from the rich land.
    Again, it's an image that is expected of the monarchy, especially as most of the time she is actually quite busy undertaking public duties. She's actually rarely in Buckingham Palace.

    A lot of the possessions of the royals aren't even used. A lot of that should be sold off. She should still live SOME luxury, but at this time it's overboard.
    Could you give some examples?

    Why are you even comparing the Queen and politicians? They both have completely different characters, and stereotypically politicians are conniving. The Queen wouldn't be issuing policies, she should just occasionally speak to her public and boost some morale.
    It does seem to me that you're criticising the monarchy for acting like royalty, which is precisely what people want from it. It might make some people feel like the monarchy acts unnatural, but that's part of its appeal; it's a different situation, a different set of rules and a different atmosphere from what we are normally used to and for the brief moment when it takes place it can be seen by many as quite refreshing.

    The irony is that Prince Charles has tried some of what you are advocating and he is not at all as respected as his mother.

    Others may find it stultifying. That's up to them. But they have politicians to turn to if they want the 'common touch'.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leondrip)
    370 engagements is a little more than one a day. An ask to see the Queen address her public perhaps 2 to 3 more times a year in public domains, shown to be engaging with real people, not politicians, is not at all a large ask. She meets with the PM on a weekly basis, and this is not for a long period of time. She's not on a heavy schedule, Her Majesty can make time.
    That one public engagement a day is just the main event of a varied and busy day. In among this she will be busy dealing with correspondence, catching up with domestic, Commonwealth and foreign news, consult with civil servants, approve appointments, sign legislation, speak with ministers, meet diplomats, meet invited members of the public, give honours, and possibly travel to the other end of the country and back in a day.

    Once again, I don't think that the majority of her estates should be sold off, but she has national jewels, art and other goods which are simply not needed. If the public are to see her as a person, and not a matriarch, then this will have to be done.
    I think the things you are referring to are not actually Hers anyway but property of the crown, so cannot be sold (and anyway is largely already available for the public to appreciate in museums). The vast majority of the Royal Art Collection is viewable in museums, as are the Crown Jewels.

    In addition, a large chunk of the Royal Art Collection is actually gifts from foreign countries, many of them given to the Queen during Her Reign. I think trying to sell them would cause significant offence among foreign countries.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Leondrip, Kate Middleton is most certainly not a 'town girl who has worked hard for her success'. She comes from a very privileged background, did a soft course up here at St Andrews and was spoilt rotten by William (for instance, he bought her a house in Cupar and had a chauffeur drive her into class).

    Whilst we're on St Andrews and William-when he came here in his first year in halls his 2 bodyguards were assigned rooms either side of his. These 2 rooms could have been used for other students but weren't because royalty is clearly above the education of mere commoners.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    Leondrip, Kate Middleton is most certainly not a 'town girl who has worked hard for her success'. She comes from a very privileged background, did a soft course up here at St Andrews and was spoilt rotten by William (for instance, he bought her a house in Cupar and had a chauffeur drive her into class).

    Whilst we're on St Andrews and William-when he came here in his first year in halls his 2 bodyguards were assigned rooms either side of his. These 2 rooms could have been used for other students but weren't because royalty is clearly above the education of mere commoners.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    I was not aware of the above fact. I knew she went to St. Andrews, but I do not see that as a upper-class privilege. However, of course I well withdraw that statement as it seems like your information is sound.

    In response to gladders comments above, a lot of Her Majesties possessions are not in museums. That is a common misconception, as any of those items have either been 'generously' donated, or auctioned. Whilst she may receive gifts from foreign countries, to auction them and donate the money, or at least preserve them in national galleries, would be a greater message to world leaders that the Queen aknowledges that she is a public figure and a banner to unite under, not an aristocrat above 'mere mortals'.

    As I reinstate: I think the monarchy is of huge importance to the British tradition. But in this time, it seems like she is more distant than ever. (age is not a factor, since her rule it's always been this way).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    Whilst we're on St Andrews and William-when he came here in his first year in halls his 2 bodyguards were assigned rooms either side of his. These 2 rooms could have been used for other students but weren't because royalty is clearly above the education of mere commoners.
    Imagine it was the son of the sitting President, or of a former president. Do you not think they'd get security?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leondrip)
    In response to gladders comments above, a lot of Her Majesties possessions are not in museums. That is a common misconception, as any of those items have either been 'generously' donated, or auctioned. Whilst she may receive gifts from foreign countries, to auction them and donate the money, or at least preserve them in national galleries, would be a greater message to world leaders that the Queen aknowledges that she is a public figure and a banner to unite under, not an aristocrat above 'mere mortals'.
    I really don't think that's how it will be seen. It's like selling the xmas presents you got from your gran right in front of her.

    As I reinstate: I think the monarchy is of huge importance to the British tradition. But in this time, it seems like she is more distant than ever. (age is not a factor, since her rule it's always been this way).
    You say that, but arguably the Queen is more popular than ever...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leondrip)
    I was not aware of the above fact. I knew she went to St. Andrews, but I do not see that as a upper-class privilege. However, of course I well withdraw that statement as it seems like your information is sound.

    In response to gladders comments above, a lot of Her Majesties possessions are not in museums. That is a common misconception, as any of those items have either been 'generously' donated, or auctioned. Whilst she may receive gifts from foreign countries, to auction them and donate the money, or at least preserve them in national galleries, would be a greater message to world leaders that the Queen aknowledges that she is a public figure and a banner to unite under, not an aristocrat above 'mere mortals'.

    As I reinstate: I think the monarchy is of huge importance to the British tradition. But in this time, it seems like she is more distant than ever. (age is not a factor, since her rule it's always been this way).
    I go to St Andrews and am certainly not upper class. Kate comes from a wealthy family indeed, there's no denying that. There is a significant upper class student crowd here which they were both part of (and indeed it was there they met).


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Imagine it was the son of the sitting President, or of a former president. Do you not think they'd get security?
    His area of the building was bomb proofed. I'm sure he could've been kept safe without 2 deserving students having to miss out.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    0
    The Monarchy brings in lots of tourism, is a safeguard to stop the country from becoming a dictatorship, and on the odd celebration makes me pretty proud to be British. Other than that it doesn't affect any of our lives at all, so why bother changing it?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    His area of the building was bomb proofed. I'm sure he could've been kept safe without 2 deserving students having to miss out.
    And that's exactly why you don't work in the field of VIP security.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    And that's exactly why you don't work in the field of VIP security.
    What would you recommend, captain fantastic?


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    What would you recommend, captain fantastic?
    Perhaps stick to being a chemist
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foghorn Leghorn)
    Isn't the monarxh 100 times more expensive than the irish president?
    No because you cannot calculate how much the Queen costs. We do not know how much revenue comes in through direct tourism because of the Queen, so so to say she's a burden is just nonsense.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_999)
    In a democratic society, there is no room for a head of state that is just put there for life. Apparently the monarchy costs us £202 million, and that money would be better spent on improving education, healthcare. The queen has utterly failed to do anything that is worthy of. (Apart from being charitable)
    I think many figures suggest the monarchy brings in a lot more than it costs. The monarchy brings massive interest to our country as it is by far the most famous monarchy in the world. Lots of tourism is generated.

    The Queen has behaved like a textbook constitutional monarch, she is extremely well respected abroad and this gives off a positive image of our country. She's the only head of state who can upstage the US president.

    There's no economic case for ditching the monarchy and as long as the monarch behaves as a non-partisan head of state who keeps their opinions to their self then it is no infringement on democracy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackJack)
    No because you cannot calculate how much the Queen costs. We do not know how much revenue comes in through direct tourism because of the Queen, so so to say she's a burden is just nonsense.
    By that logic to say she isn't a burden is rather stupid as well because as you claim, we don't know. In any case even if she is a burden, she costs pennies compared to other factors like lets say tax avoidance so it's not a reason to get rid of the monarch. And that's coming from a republican.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Please bring Obama here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    The monarchy is an outdated concept that needs abolished, it sends out a signal to the rest of the world that we are fine with un-elected people holding the highest positions of authority in our society. There also used as a way to make people feel guilt tripped into spending money on a party to celebrate the fact that some old ladies been in her job for such a long period of time as it would be unpatriotic and treasonous not do so.

    We need an elected head of state who is directly accountable to the people, rather than leaving the position to the woman who's ancestors were warmongering of doom across these islands. Keeping the Queen encourages the traditionalist thinking that will doom this country like the idea that their was once some glorious empire we should yearn after.

    At a time when people hate benefit scroungers, why do they fawn over the biggest one - Elizabeth Windsor and her extended brood of taxpayer funded kiddy winks. That's before we get onto how bad the royal nepotist culture is for society.
    Even not inculding the millions that the royal family brings the uk in tourism revenue the queen gives more money to the goverment than to what she gets given. A president or similar will cost so much and would need power which would mess up the political system.
    Also the monarch has so little actual power the fact that you are saying that she is a dictator like figure is completey incorrect. The monarchy provides a stable face that shows that britian has a constant identity.
    The monarchy must stay for the benefit and good of the united kingdom,The realms and the commomwealth.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with this argument, which many republicans have fallen prey to and which has been exploited by monarchists, is to present the issue in isolation rather than part of a broader reform.

    Take for example, the issue of ceremonial presidents in other countries, which monarchists often point to to suggest that the cost won't change. Yet many republicans would like to see the ceremonial role done away with altogether.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astrojg)
    Even not inculding the millions that the royal family brings the uk in tourism revenue
    The tourism argument is both fallacious and injurious to the dignity of the state. We should be deciding our form of government based on what is best for this country, not on what form of government foreigners like best.

    And did the explusion of the Bourbon monarchy mean that France gets less tourism? Do people give Versailles a miss simply because there's no longer a king there?

    the queen gives more money to the goverment than to what she gets given.
    Eh? What are you talking about? What money does the Queen give to the government? I think you're under a grave misapprehension.

    A president or similar will cost so much and would need power which would mess up the political system.
    Clearly not. There's nothing to indicate a President would cost more. In fact, considering we wouldn't be having to make civil list payments and provide protection to members of the President's "heir" and extended family, as we do for the Royal Family, it should cost considerably less.

    Also, why would they need more power? The President could be given the exact same powers the Queen currently has.

    Also the monarch has so little actual power the fact that you are saying that she is a dictator like figure is completey incorrect.
    Utter nonsense. The Queen has immense de jure powers, which she tends not to exercise other than on advice of her ministers, but equally exercises considerable informal power, both as the Head of State, head of the premier family in the realm and one of the richest people in the country.

    I would quote Prince Charles' former press secretary, Mark Bolland

    The Windsors are very good at working three days a week, five months of a year and making it look as though they work hard
    Nuff said.
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

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

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.