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

    16
    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    The monarchy is an outdated concept that needs abolished, it sends out a signal to the rest of the world that we are fine with un-elected people holding the highest positions of authority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.
    Not really seeing as she does actually work. What else would you call the hectic day to day schedule she's been doing for the best part of 60 years?

    As for the rest of your post, we do have an elected head of state that is directly accountable to the people, the Prime Minister. Whoever heard of a Royal Family that was elected. Either keep it as it is or scrap it.
    Btw people weren't guilt tripped into spending money for the Jubilee. Some actually did give a stuff about it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    How is it patriotic to support a hereditary bloodline of power and unelected office? What it is, is actually worshipping a family of nobodies and making them into somebodies and they then get the chance to look down on you condescendingly by virtue of their birth. I'm not against aristocracy or wealth in general (my parent's family is wealthy by virtue of generations of self-reliance), but Royalty is ridiculous in these times and it certainly isn't patriotic to support the Queen of England - of England!
    Because that's what tradition says, it's just what we do. It's such a quaint idea of an old lady perceived to have such a high power and the world has run away with it. It's not really condescending - I don't feel it any different to any other families in the aristocracy. But they have no say in running the country - that is all parliament. She's the Queen of England and Great Britain. The anthem says 'God Save OUR Gracious Queen', not 'their', 'our'.

    Look, you're not going to change my mind and I'm evidently not going to change yours (not that's what I set out to do, I set out to express my opinion but hey ho), so can you please let me have my opinion, I'll let you have yours and we can both focus on more important matters.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I don't find the tourism argument convincing either way, but there are bound to be some people - even if a handful - who will be more persuaded to visit the UK over seeing royal history and the royals at present. Definitely more than someone who would go 'hey, let's visit the UK, it's a republic!

    The tourist figures don't lie though, do they? More to the point, as I've said the likes of Germany, France, and Italy don't struggle for tourism because they lack a monarchy. They have more to offer than one family living in obscene privilege, and in fact, so does the UK.


    No, but if there's no reason to get rid of it (and there aren't, really), then the corresponding holds: just because something is traditional does not mean it should be remove solely on that basis.

    Peoples' main objection to it comes from it being an inherently unjust way of electing the head of state. I accept that change shouldn't be made for the sake of change but I want the best for Britain-which in my, and fellow republicans' views, is for a publicly elected leader.


    But as you say, Britain has become wealthy through the Empire; if we're to be consistent, while we dismantle the monarchy we should hand off our wealth and infrastructure to those countries who essentially paid for it. We don't do this because it would be complicated, massively damaging to the UK, but above all, because the statute of limitations means we don't have to.

    Fair point, but not what I was driving at. If other countries wish to remain in the Commonwealth that is their prerogative-it is something that I do find grossly unappealing however. Celebrating the fact we once oppressed entire nations of people in the name of conquest isn't my cup of tea.

    No.

    The Prince and Queen vetoes are only ever exercised on the advice of the government of the day, and are in turn held accountable for that to Parliament. The government wouldn't use it to block a genuinely popular measure as they would be thrown out on their ear; a new government would advise the Queen or Prince differently. In short, it's become a perfectly democratic mechanism, akin to the Presidential veto in the US, but hardly ever used.

    No, but the right to use it is still firmly enshrined in law and it has no place in modern Britain. The monarch still technically has the ability to override his/her government-they shouldn't.


    I am perfectly okay with the Queen being C-in-C of the Armed Forces and all such soldiers thereof swearing allegiance to Her. It's akin to swearing allegiance to the flag - a neutral symbol. Far better than allegiance to a particular government.

    I would rather swear allegiance to my country rather than a woman who got the job on birth.


    The Church of England matter is probably better in a different thread, but speaking as an atheist it really does not bother me.

    Agreed.


    I think most people would argue they'd much rather the present system than a politician. The fact is, it's simply not true that being a republic means 'anyone can be anything'. In fact, you have to be rich, or a politician, or both. And we know what people think of politicians.

    Nobody said a republic was flawless-but I firmly believe it would be a step in the right direction. Countries like the USA have been republics their entire existence but it hasn't solved all of their problems-but the chance to one day rule the country is at least open to any American, technically, if not always in practice.


    Actually, I'm a fan of the House of Lords as well

    I don't object to the Lords-I just object to hereditary peerages, which monarchists like David Cameron ardently object to as well. I find it a little contradictory to hold such beliefs.

    Answers in bold.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Not really seeing as she does actually work. What else would you call the hectic day to day schedule she's been doing for the best part of 60 years?

    As for the rest of your post, we do have an elected head of state that is directly accountable to the people, the Prime Minister. Whoever heard of a Royal Family that was elected. Either keep it as it is or scrap it.
    Btw people weren't guilt tripped into spending money for the Jubilee. Some actually did give a stuff about it.
    The Queen counts hosting banquets, ribbon cutting ceremonies, and hand shaking ceremonies as part of her hard day's graft. I bet someone working 9-5 at a coal face is thanking their lucky stars they don't have such a tough ride.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    My general point is that the people living there originally would not have chucked their predecessors off the land or charged them a sum to keep living there. Neither is defensible but that is precisely what the monarch of the time did, and commoners have been charged for visiting ever since.
    The land was never owned by 'the people', the Duchy of Lancaster for example was created out of lands previously owned by the Earl of Leicester and the Earl of Derby. Those lands were previous Norman estates created after the conquest in 1066, taken from the Saxon nobles, who took the lands from the Romano-British aristocracy, who were gifted that lands by the Romans, who took it from the Celts, who knicked it from previous neolithic cultures, who wiped out the Neanderthals.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    The Queen counts hosting banquets, ribbon cutting ceremonies, and hand shaking ceremonies as part of her hard day's graft. I bet someone working 9-5 at a coal face is thanking their lucky stars they don't have such a tough ride.
    So because she doesn't work in a physically demanding job like mining coal it doesn't classify as work? The Royal Family does many things. Charity events, promoting education like STEM careers, enviromental issues, health issues. I think you could probably classify rather a lot of that as work.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by navarre)
    Sooo... you think that having an elected official would stop the tabloid media going on about them? You have no evidence for this- Michelle Obama is scrutinized very heavily even to the dress she wears, and her husband is an elected official. Same with Carla Bruni in France, and heck, anybody glamourous and in the spotlight.

    As for Wills and Kate invading many continents and oppressing and killing millions of innocent people- are you serious? Actually, why stop at one outwardly stupid and blatantly false statement? Why not claim that they've invaded planets and killed TRILLIONS of people while you're at it?

    If you expect me to take you seriously, then please bring facts into your arguments. Silly comments and blanket statements don't impress me.

    At least it wouldn't be about people who are there simply because of birth alone.

    Also, when I was talking about invasions and the oppression and murders of millions of innocents - I clearly stated "their like", clearly not Will and Kate themselves!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    So because she doesn't work in a physically demanding job like mining coal it doesn't classify as work? The Royal Family does many things. Charity events, promoting education like STEM careers, enviromental issues, health issues. I think you could probably classify rather a lot of that as work.
    Because that's as taxing as a barrister preparing for several court cases? Because that's as taxing as the duties of a construction worker? Because that's as taxing as the work of an engineer?

    They're basically glorified lottery winners, no?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    So because she doesn't work in a physically demanding job like mining coal it doesn't classify as work? The Royal Family does many things. Charity events, promoting education like STEM careers, enviromental issues, health issues. I think you could probably classify rather a lot of that as work.
    None of those things are difficult or cumbersome to do. There are people out there doing the same things alongside their full time work who get no recognition in comparison. Don't get me started on Charles pretending he's a scientist.


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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    The land was never owned by 'the people', the Duchy of Lancaster for example was created out of lands previously owned by the Earl of Leicester and the Earl of Derby. Those lands were previous Norman estates created after the conquest in 1066, taken from the Saxon nobles, who took the lands from the Romano-British aristocracy, who were gifted that lands by the Romans, who took it from the Celts, who knicked it from previous neolithic cultures, who wiped out the Neanderthals.
    So why should HM's 'most humble servants' have to pay for visiting such land?


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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Not really seeing as she does actually work. What else would you call the hectic day to day schedule she's been doing for the best part of 60 years?
    I'm sure their work is very stressful, the poor dears. A high-flying firm partner's work is stressful. An engineer on a deadline is stressed and pushed. A doctor's work is taxing and stressful.

    The Royalty's work is basically akin to a lottery winner who is bound by some non-arduous duties.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    At least it wouldn't be about people who are there simply because of birth alone.

    Also, when I was talking about invasions and the oppression and murders of millions of innocents - I clearly stated "their like", clearly not Will and Kate themselves!
    Actually, Mr Cameron and many senior politicians we have today were born into wealthy families with long histories of politics. We'd just be getting rid of one great institution with grace, honour and political neutrality and replacing it with one where career politicians born with silver spoons in their mouths pass the baton of power back and forth and continue their respective dynasties. Sure, they have to have votes to be in No 10, but which man do we vote for? The Etonian educated toff who was always going to be prime minister or the Oxford educated guy who's easy life and political career has also guaranteed him power. If you are concerned about 'birth' so much, what is your opinion on that?


    'Their like'- what on Earth does that mean, and how is it a legitimate argument for the 21st century?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    I'm sure their work is very stressful, the poor dears. A high-flying firm partner's work is stressful. An engineer on a deadline is stressed and pushed. A doctor's work is taxing and stressful.

    The Royalty's work is basically akin to a lottery winner who is bound by some non-arduous duties.
    I would love to call hosting a banquet part of my day job and be praised for it. Better yet, the taxpayer covers the bill, so bottoms up.


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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    So why should HM's 'most humble servants' have to pay for visiting such land?


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    You don't have to pay to 'visit' the duchy, it's a bloody property portfolio, not a tourist attraction.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    You don't have to pay to 'visit' the duchy, it's a bloody property portfolio, not a tourist attraction.
    But I thought people only came to Britain to get a chance at seeing God-I mean, Charles?


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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)

    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.
    It's ok - They do 'work experience'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    I would love to call hosting a banquet part of my day job and be praised for it. Better yet, the taxpayer covers the bill, so bottoms up.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    It's ridiculous, I know.

    The only reason any easy work may even warrant being called taxing is due to Her Majesty and her husband's ages. Passing over that, it's been a life of free rides, privilege and ease for them.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    But I thought people only came to Britain to get a chance at seeing God-I mean, Charles?
    Nice attempt to try and cover up the fact that you were flat out wrong earlier.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I don't find the tourism argument convincing either way, but there are bound to be some people - even if a handful - who will be more persuaded to visit the UK over seeing royal history and the royals at present. Definitely more than someone who would go 'hey, let's visit the UK, it's a republic!'



    No, but if there's no reason to get rid of it (and there aren't, really), then the corresponding holds: just because something is traditional does not mean it should be remove solely on that basis.



    But as you say, Britain has become wealthy through the Empire; if we're to be consistent, while we dismantle the monarchy we should hand off our wealth and infrastructure to those countries who essentially paid for it. We don't do this because it would be complicated, massively damaging to the UK, but above all, because the statute of limitations means we don't have to.



    No.

    The Prince and Queen vetoes are only ever exercised on the advice of the government of the day, and are in turn held accountable for that to Parliament. The government wouldn't use it to block a genuinely popular measure as they would be thrown out on their ear; a new government would advise the Queen or Prince differently. In short, it's become a perfectly democratic mechanism, akin to the Presidential veto in the US, but hardly ever used.

    I am perfectly okay with the Queen being C-in-C of the Armed Forces and all such soldiers thereof swearing allegiance to Her. It's akin to swearing allegiance to the flag - a neutral symbol. Far better than allegiance to a particular government.

    The Church of England matter is probably better in a different thread, but speaking as an atheist it really does not bother me.



    I think most people would argue they'd much rather the present system than a politician. The fact is, it's simply not true that being a republic means 'anyone can be anything'. In fact, you have to be rich, or a politician, or both. And we know what people think of politicians.



    Actually, I'm a fan of the House of Lords as well
    From a financial point of view, if the royal family spends more than they bring in, then get rid of them.

    Conversely, if they bring in more revenue than they spend, keep them.

    Better still, why not have two, perhaps even three royal families to boost income!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    But I thought people only came to Britain to get a chance at seeing God-I mean, Charles?


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Phillip is the one who is thought of as god not his fruity prodigy.
 
 
 
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.