Anti monarchy paranoia Watch

katierose111
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
I am an anti monarchy person i guess. Though i am not opposed to them representing britain as celebrities, however. I seem to think it is massively unfair, like the qualifications, also their deaths are taken more seriously and they have never really 'done' anything.
I am very girly so i guess in this world it can pass you by, but sometimes i just take a look out at our country, and wonder what we are doing. It just seems so - well strange.
The queen sends people out to war, her relatives go, get the badges and would never actually fight and be killed.
I am not a total commnuist but it also seems strange that people use up the energy resources and ge to keep the money.
I was wondering if anyone else in the uk had this point of view. In ways it seems like a loathing for the rich, the not free people.
I saw someone from oxford on here a boy, and he seemed to have something 'right' to say.
2
reply
Steevee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
They're public figures, as such there is more interest in their lives just as with other public figures. They also have important diplomatic and representative roles to play, and for the most part they play them well. The problems in our country are myriad, but the monarchy is not really contributing to them, if we did away with the monarchy then we'd require a Head of State and dozens of special envoys and diplomats to fill all of the roles they fill.

Also, plenty of the Royal Family have taken on combat roles in recent history and were keen to do so, though when the threat to their life seems more than normal for a soldier due to enemy combatants knowing who they are fighting then yes, they may be removed from that situation.
1
reply
yo radical one
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
People will say they make more money than they cost and that getting rid of them would lose the country money, but that is bull
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by Tahooper)
Would you rather have David Cameron as the head of state?
Or someone like Francois Hollande, who sneaks out on his moped (allegedly) to visit 'mi Julie'?
0
reply
Marcum
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by Tahooper)
Would you rather have David Cameron as the head of state?
Now that is assuming we follow the system of the United States of America, but the good news is that we do not have to adopt that system! Germany, for example, is a parliamentary constitutional republic and has both a President and a Chancellor, who is essentially similar to our prime minister, the Chancellor holds the power in Germany but is not the head of state.
0
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
They don't cost the average citizen that much, they are an important part of national identity and culture, they perform valuable diplomatic roles, and it's useful to have a power higher than government that, in times of crisis, can step in to maintain a ruling authority. If the British or commonwealth governments tried a U.S. style shutdown, the Crown can step in and dissolve parliament, for example, and appoint a functioning one. This happened before in Australia.
1
reply
Axiomasher
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by katierose111)
I am an anti monarchy person i guess. Though i am not opposed to them representing britain as celebrities, however. I seem to think it is massively unfair, like the qualifications, also their deaths are taken more seriously and they have never really 'done' anything.
I am very girly so i guess in this world it can pass you by, but sometimes i just take a look out at our country, and wonder what we are doing. It just seems so - well strange.
The queen sends people out to war, her relatives go, get the badges and would never actually fight and be killed.
I am not a total commnuist but it also seems strange that people use up the energy resources and ge to keep the money.
I was wondering if anyone else in the uk had this point of view. In ways it seems like a loathing for the rich, the not free people.
I saw someone from oxford on here a boy, and he seemed to have something 'right' to say.
Yeah, they should definitely be phased out.

Name:  Queenie-Says.jpg
Views: 389
Size:  62.8 KB
2
reply
Josb
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by barnetlad)
Or someone like Francois Hollande, who sneaks out on his moped (allegedly) to visit 'mi Julie'?
Don't criticize our président! He's a charismatic leader and everybody loves him!
0
reply
yo radical one
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by Tahooper)
Would you rather have David Cameron as the head of state?
That's such a poisoning the well type of argument

Firstly, tbh, the Royal family are not good people in their own right so the comparison is childish, but David Cameron would probably remain PM and the Head of State would be someone fairly politically neutral who was selected for being likable, charismatic and having served the country in an unselfish way.

(Original post by Josb)
Don't criticize our président! He's a charismatic leader and everybody loves him!
He's short and ugly, the old one was better
0
reply
Josb
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by yo radical one)


He's short and ugly, the old one was better
How can you say that? He's a womanizer!
0
reply
yo radical one
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by Josb)
How can you say that? He's a womanizer!
Until his affair, I honestly thought he was gay (nothing to do with his height really)
0
reply
skunkboy
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
If you were a member of royal family, you wouldn't say something just like that. And do you think the rich have no problems? If you think so, you're completely wrong.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Stewie2011
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by Steevee)
They're public figures, as such there is more interest in their lives just as with other public figures. They also have important diplomatic and representative roles to play, and for the most part they play them well. The problems in our country are myriad, but the monarchy is not really contributing to them, if we did away with the monarchy then we'd require a Head of State and dozens of special envoys and diplomats to fill all of the roles they fill.

Also, plenty of the Royal Family have taken on combat roles in recent history and were keen to do so, though when the threat to their life seems more than normal for a soldier due to enemy combatants knowing who they are fighting then yes, they may be removed from that situation.
normal soldier? and what is really so different about them, they are flesh and bones just like 'normal soldiers' so should do the full job like 'normal soldiers' not just fly in and out for publicity

No, I can't stand them, I find them absolutely loathsome. People who defend them often haven't done a job or had a life where you see how hard some people have to work for their money and the sh*t they have to put up with. Only then to be tax and have some of there tax money go to support the Monarchy that are well richer than they are and living a lavish lifestyle. Directly from taxation it is one hundred and something odd million a year, then there's money from the Duchy, indirect costs, etc, etc.

Can't stand the way a lot of focus/criticism/issues over the money is directed away into a quietness by the mainstream media. i.e talk can be made of Scottish Independence, benefit issues, sleaze in parliament, finance industry, etc, but no issues are ever brought up about the Monarchy its like they have been given an invisible cloak to wear.

The organisation Republic is one that is growing in support these days, its a lobby/activist group. Set up in the 90's but has really only picked up steam recently. So anyone anti-monarchists like myself its the most significant place to head.

In any case there is no requirement to have a President, paying a few civil servants/judicial representation would be cheaper than the monarchy, there's little they really do that needs replacing. Meeting the odd diplomat/dignitary takes like 5 minutes, anyone could do it.
0
reply
Abstraction
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
Well I for one definitely support the abolition of the monarchy. I know the cost to the government is negligible but thats not what I care about. I just think its incredibly immoral for a family to have a much more comfortable life than most other people because of their bloodline. They've done nothing for their wealth so why, in this day and age of so-called "equal opportunity", is the state giving vast amounts of wealth to people who happened to be born to the right family in the right country?

It greatly astonishes me how supportive the public are of the royal family too, I think its disgraceful. We're praising and giving attention to a woman who won't even shake your hand without a white glove on (which she probably even gets disinfected afterwards)? A family who believes they're inherently superior to you because of their bloodline? Jesus, its laughable. We attack unfortunate immigrants who come to this country to work for a better life but spill adoration all over an arrogant, conceited, lazy and pampered group of people who literally live off the state? Lord Henry (from Dorian Gray) called England "the native land of the hypocrite", how right he was.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
ahdbadman981
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
I place great value on tradition, but I am by no means an old fool and believe only those practices that are significant should be conserved. The monarchy, although an important part of our tradition, ought to be removed in a society that claims to be free, there should be no barriers to positions in society (although there are conditional advantages, being born into a wealthy family, i'm not against this at all, someone should not however be born into rank).

Whatever the cost to the government, the monarchy should be removed on principle.
0
reply
Snagprophet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by katierose111)
The queen sends people out to war.
ROFLMAO
1
reply
Steevee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by Stewie2011)
normal soldier? and what is really so different about them, they are flesh and bones just like 'normal soldiers' so should do the full job like 'normal soldiers' not just fly in and out for publicity

No, I can't stand them, I find them absolutely loathsome. People who defend them often haven't done a job or had a life where you see how hard some people have to work for their money and the sh*t they have to put up with. Only then to be tax and have some of there tax money go to support the Monarchy that are well richer than they are and living a lavish lifestyle. Directly from taxation it is one hundred and something odd million a year, then there's money from the Duchy, indirect costs, etc, etc.

Can't stand the way a lot of focus/criticism/issues over the money is directed away into a quietness by the mainstream media. i.e talk can be made of Scottish Independence, benefit issues, sleaze in parliament, finance industry, etc, but no issues are ever brought up about the Monarchy its like they have been given an invisible cloak to wear.

The organisation Republic is one that is growing in support these days, its a lobby/activist group. Set up in the 90's but has really only picked up steam recently. So anyone anti-monarchists like myself its the most significant place to head.

In any case there is no requirement to have a President, paying a few civil servants/judicial representation would be cheaper than the monarchy, there's little they really do that needs replacing. Meeting the odd diplomat/dignitary takes like 5 minutes, anyone could do it.
Nice ad homein there buddy.

Anyway, we would require a Head of State if you did away with the Monarchy, plus a whole host of diplomats and envoys to fill the positions currently filled by royalty. And I think you'll find most Royals do rather more than a couple of 5 minute meetings, but you don't seem to be someone interested in facts judging by the strength of your argument so far.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by Stewie2011)
People who defend them often haven't done a job or had a life where you see how hard some people have to work for their money and the sh*t they have to put up with.
People who criticise them often haven't the first clue about what they do, have certainly never met any of them and have no idea about the sh*t they have to put with (that they get no choice over whatsoever).


(Original post by Stewie2011)
The organisation Republic is one that is growing in support these days, its a lobby/activist group. Set up in the 90's but has really only picked up steam recently. So anyone anti-monarchists like myself its the most significant place to head.
Nope. 1983. And 20,000 members when the country has 63 million+ members barely scrapes the levels of significance. By all means go, but you're going to be rather lonely.
0
reply
Stewie2011
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by Steevee)
Nice ad homein there buddy.

Anyway, we would require a Head of State if you did away with the Monarchy.
Not true, The Prime minister (first among ministers) currently represents this country in terms of dealing with foreign powers heads of state. So there would be no need to have a head of state, i.e President. For go the cost of a head of state I say and be a bit different, lead the way for other nations to follow. People are mind washed into thinking a head of state is needed when practically there is no need they just follow the line of thought trumped on the television.

The Monarchy do no real job, its a non job. Its there choice whether to meet any foreign dignitary, there's no need or benefit to the nation in them doing so. If it lasts more than a few minutes there having a jolly at the taxpayers expense. All you see on the internet/news all the time is them off enjoying themselves at the taxpayers expense. Wills etc. didn't even pay for the tickets to the Olympic events they went to see, with all the money they have, just shows how low they will go. Most other working people manage to pay the cost.
0
reply
Converse Rocker
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by Abstraction)
A family who believes they're inherently superior to you because of their bloodline?]
People pull stuff like this out of their ass all the time. What did the Royal Family do to make you think this? Maybe they don't do 'normal' stuff because we the people would harass them constantly.

I would never, ever wish I was a royal. The thought of being jetted off to other countries to shake hands with old men and maintain international relations - can't think of anything worse. People like to create this image that they sit in palaces sipping tea and call us all scum, it's laughable. If you're going to oppose the monarchy at least do it for legitimate reasons and not this ad hominem nonsense.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
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

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (152)
59.61%
No I haven't decided yet (58)
22.75%
Yes but I might change my mind (45)
17.65%

Watched Threads

View All