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

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    It's pretty hard to have a rational debate with this kind of tosh. The monarchy is outdated
    You're lecturing me on rational debate? You're the one who is making the irrational argument of saying something is somehow 'outdated' just because you say it is.

    Actually, seen as it works everywhere else maybe we're the ones in the wrong? Handing down poor along the head of state on genetic lines has never worked too well - North Korea ring a bell.
    So now you're contradicting your previous comment, which criticised 'so its fine if everyone else is doing it'; which is it? Should we do what everyone else says or strike our on our own?

    Nobodies forcing me too but it's pretty awkward when you're the only person in the room who doesn't feel they should like a royalist arse-licking prat with bunting hats on in a work/school environment.
    Poor thing. Welcome to a free society. People get up to things you don't.

    The parliamentary system. So let's just make the PM head of state and cut out the archaic ceremonial prickfest that is the monarchy.
    Ah, so you're constitutionally illiterate, too.

    Most were dictatorial at some point. Allowing dictatorial bloodlines ceremonial pedestals in societies is an insult to those who suffered at their hands.
    How? Surely it depends on the country. There are hereditary monarchies such as our own which evolved hand-in-hand with the rule of law and democracy. There are others which started out non-monarchical but still became exploitative tyrannies. Just because some countries have had rubbish monarchies does not mean we should just tar the whole thing with the same brush.

    Besides, what relevance does this have to the present monarchy?

    A fair few of which decide the head of state along genetic lines. The whole idea of someone being born into a status within the constitutional framework of a nation is silly and anti-freedom.
    'Anti-freedom?' Hah! You clearly have no idea what freedom actually is. Our country is free with the monarchy, not in spite of it. Removing it would not enhance our liberty one iota.

    I'm arguing a president wouldn't have several houses and the ridiculous amount of staff that the Queen has. Hopefully we'd be a bit more economical with the staff of a president.
    Prove that she has a particularly large amount of staff or houses compared to other Heads of State. I can say to you right now that compared to the French and Italian Presidents, she's one of the most frugal Heads of State around.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    "silly reasoning"

    Well so okay we accept your idea, and become a republic. How will this benefit us any more than the Royal family do?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    For what it's worth we might as well keep the Monarchy. She might cost us money, but look what money the Royal family bring in through tourism. Surely on top of all of the other reasoning this proves that the Monarchy and Royal family have great significance, and should stay.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    This isn't the 1700s.
    Your right, that's why the way our current Queen carries out her duties bears no resemblance to how the kings and queens of the 1700s did.

    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    How do you feel about some random family being paid by you to live the high life simply for being born?
    ... as opposed to some random appointed politician being paid to live the high life. I'd prefer the option that results in the head of state being well respected and recognised at home and around the world.

    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    People always use the petty "they bring in money via tourism" blah blah - it's not even that much. If it were gone, we wouldn't be greatly worse off.
    We probably would lose out in the long term. I've provided some actual logical reasons why the Royals contribute to tourism in my previous post rather than just 'blah blah'. I would like to hear some logical reasons why an appointed politician would bring in more money via tourism.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ambulare)
    "silly reasoning"

    Well so okay we accept your idea, and become a republic. How will this benefit us any more than the Royal family do?
    You were arguing that our heritage is a good thing and that's why we should keep the monarchy. Do you want to keep all of our heritage like banning homosexuality, the death penalty, not allowing women the vote, hanging people for not doing what the king says etc? Or do you just want the bits of the heritage of this country you like?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    You were arguing that our heritage is a good thing and that's why we should keep the monarchy. Do you want to keep all of our heritage like banning homosexuality, the death penalty, not allowing women the vote, hanging people for not doing what the king says etc? Or do you just want the bits of the heritage of this country you like?
    Complete and utter strawman. Nobody is claiming homophobia, death penalty, or anti-suffragism are heritage any more than using Windows 95 is a heritage, either.

    What a ridiculous argument.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Complete and utter strawman. Nobody is claiming homophobia, death penalty, or anti-suffragism are heritage any more than using Windows 95 is a heritage, either.

    What a ridiculous argument.
    Well it's part of the history of the nation so it much be such a brilliant thing. After all that's why they wanted the monarchy. If you don't want straw manned don't use silly arguments that are susceptible to straw manning.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    However much I find the royal family irritating, they do bring so much tourism into the country. The reason why tourists flock to see the royal castles is because they're living there, they're present which attracts far more tourism then castles where the monarchy was abolished, such as France. Countries where the monarchy is abolished the castles are seen as glamorized ruins, and they could not charge a high entry fee. Tourists like the monarchy; think of all the places which would suffer a massive loss if they left. For example the Scottish highlands attracts many Americans because of the royal family's attendance of the highland games. The queen is more of a dormant head of state; she doesn't use her power and she's just there for the tourists.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The monarchy is synonymous with England. I don't want my country to lose a defining part of its character.

    For all intents and purposes the Prime Minister runs the country.. to try and describe the Queen as holding the highest office of state is indeed technically correct but effectively she wields no power. My only concern is when the likes of Charles become King and it is well known he likes to interfere.. then becoming a Republic starts to get more attractive..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think our heritage is a fantastic thing, yes.

    Although how can you say banning homosexuality and having the death penalty in place is part of our heritage? It did happen, yes. But you've got to remember that it hasn't just been the UK who have had problems with discrimination in the past, and we're not the only country that had the death penalty!! In a modern society we understand that these things are possibly wrong, but we live and learn. How can we compare our Monarchy to the death penalty?!

    Why would you strip our country of our individuality? I believe that having a Monarch is part of being British.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    Well it's part of the history of the nation so it much be such a brilliant thing. After all that's why they wanted the monarchy. If you don't want straw manned don't use silly arguments that are susceptible to straw manning.
    But you're the one conflating monarchy and homophobia/death penalty/anti-suffragism. It's an extreme and desperate argument which cannot succeed.

    It's easy to demonstrate ways in which removing homophobia would improve the lives of individuals and society as a whole, same with removing the death penalty and giving women the vote. The argument isn't about tradition - it's about material utility.

    Removing the monarchy would make no difference to the person on the street, and wouldn't impact the welfare of the country either. Not one bit.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arbolus)
    We don't pay for the Royal Family to live the high life. They pay for it themselves using the income from their own personal property, just as with any other old and wealthy family.

    The civil list, covering expenses such as security, staff salaries, the upkeep of palaces and so on, will always exist no matter who the head of state is. And enough people enjoy celebrations like the Diamond Jubilee that it would be worth spending money on them even if there wasn't a Queen for the jubilee to be in honour of.

    The privilege of getting to ride on an ornately decorated barge in the pouring rain for two hours is one that I'm quite willing to forgo.
    And who do you think got them those properties in the first instances and those lands? This isn't just any other old and wealthy family - this is one which has been paid for by the people for some time, generations even. They are even afforded numerous asylum seekers to come over without the same screening as any other asylum seeker (e.g. Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark fleeing Greece).

    It doesn't matter how "nice" they seem or whatever - it is a great insult to the general populace. A hereditary office? What is this - North Korea? It's 2013! Why does Britain still keep this hereditary office? A Head of State would be elected. This hereditary office is not needed - the United Kingdom is a democracy, is it not?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ambulare)
    I think our heritage is a fantastic thing, yes.

    Although how can you say banning homosexuality and having the death penalty in place is part of our heritage? It did happen, yes. But you've got to remember that it hasn't just been the UK who have had problems with discrimination in the past, and we're not the only country that had the death penalty!! In a modern society we understand that these things are possibly wrong, but we live and learn. How can we compare our Monarchy to the death penalty?!

    Why would you strip our country of our individuality? I believe that having a Monarch is part of being British.
    Such heritage also involves the Atlantic Slave Trade and the invasive Empire and millions of innocent deaths. We all moan about the Nazis, when in fact, lots of European empires of age old are responsible for millions of deaths in foreign lands - these countries did not request that the Empire come and pillage and plunder their continents now, did they?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    In my opinion, they don't do anything, they're harmless. It's not like they have any political influence anymore anyway. It's great for British tourism, you know that 'tea with the queen' image the world hold of England/Britain. Wills and Kate getting married and the Queen's diamond jubilee gave everyone in the country an excuse to feel happy and celebrate something quintessentially British, and patriotism like that is ever diminishing in our country. In reality, it wouldn't make a huge amount of difference whether they remained there or not, but 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AJ_Moose)
    The monarchy is synonymous with England. I don't want my country to lose a defining part of its character.

    For all intents and purposes the Prime Minister runs the country.. to try and describe the Queen as holding the highest office of state is indeed technically correct but effectively she wields no power. My only concern is when the likes of Charles become King and it is well known he likes to interfere.. then becoming a Republic starts to get more attractive..
    Methinks the proud Scots and Irishmen and Welshmen aren't too pleased looking at your Queenie? :pierre:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Molly_xox)
    In my opinion, they don't do anything, they're harmless. It's not like they have any political influence anymore anyway. It's great for British tourism, you know that 'tea with the queen' image the world hold of England/Britain. Wills and Kate getting married and the Queen's diamond jubilee gave everyone in the country an excuse to feel happy and celebrate something quintessentially British, and patriotism like that is ever diminishing in our country. In reality, it wouldn't make a huge amount of difference whether they remained there or not, but 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.
    Everyone always says "they're harmless" and just sweeps it under the carpet - that's what you've been fooled into thinking by good PR. The fact is, there are millionaire and billionaires (seriously, billionaires! e.g. the Duke of Westminster) by virtue of funding from successive generations of the general populace. An insult to the people, I say!

    Patriotic? To what? England or Britain or the United Kingdom? Do the proud Scots beam with pride at the Queen? The Irishmen?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    And who do you think got them those properties in the first instances and those lands? This isn't just any other old and wealthy family - this is one which has been paid for by the people for some time, generations even.
    You could say that about anybody who has property. Arguably at some point in the past it would taken and kept for their own. Suffice to say, the monarchy hasn't 'stolen' property for centuries, and the statute of limitations means the present incumbents are as innocent as any one of us.

    They are even afforded numerous asylum seekers to come over without the same screening as any other asylum seeker (e.g. Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark fleeing Greece).
    Well if the EU had been around at that time he'd still be able to come here

    It doesn't matter how "nice" they seem or whatever - it is a great insult to the general populace. A hereditary office? What is this - North Korea?
    Why should it be an insult? It's there by the will and consent of the general people, and it's insulting of you to look down upon them for that. The monarchy is a powerful symbol, a unifying one, for numerous reasons.

    It's 2013!
    So what? In a hundred years time it will be 2113. I don't think it will tear the universe apart if the monarchy exists until 3113.

    Why does Britain still keep this hereditary office? A Head of State would be elected.
    What makes you say that? Most Heads of State are not, in fact, elected.

    This hereditary office is not needed - the United Kingdom is a democracy, is it not?
    The nature of appointment of a ceremonial Head of State is nothing to do with democracy. An elected government is.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    Everyone always says "they're harmless" and just sweeps it under the carpet - that's what you've been fooled into thinking by good PR. The fact is, there are millionaire and billionaires (seriously, billionaires! e.g. the Duke of Westminster) by virtue of funding from successive generations of the general populace. An insult to the people, I say!
    They are not funded by the general populace. The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh are the only recipients of state money, and that is expressly only for the purpose of the functioning of the office of Head of State - those costs would remain under a republic.

    They are personally wealthy because they have private investment portfolios which finances their personal lifestyles. No tax money goes into that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think there are many benefits to the monarchy, the main one being that they provide a tourist attraction which puts more money into the economy, also they aren't hurting anyone
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsnake23)



    ... as opposed to some random appointed politician being paid to live the high life. I'd prefer the option that results in the head of state being well respected and recognised at home and around the world.



    We probably would lose out in the long term. I've provided some actual logical reasons why the Royals contribute to tourism in my previous post rather than just 'blah blah'. I would like to hear some logical reasons why an appointed politician would bring in more money via tourism.
    Better an elected politician, than actual nobodies made into somebodies by virtue of birth and marriage. Even with or without the cost, the Head of State should be elected. The Union is a democracy - so what business do we have with a hereditary bloodline and hereditary "office"?
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?
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.