Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Should the Monarchy end with the Queen? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I am very fond of the Queen and the monarchy when she is the office-holder; however, I feel that she represents the last remnants of the monarchy which was moulded by King George V and Queen Mary, and which has been very popular and successful. The next-in-line seem to represent a new, modern branch of the monarchy which I am not sure will work.

    Views? Anyone else here who does not self-define as a republican but feels the monarchy should end with the Queen as, in practice, it probably won't work in the future in the same way?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    I am very fond of the Queen and the monarchy when she is the office-holder; however, I feel that she represents the last remnants of the monarchy which was moulded by King George V and Queen Mary, and which has been very popular and successful. The next-in-line seem to represent a new, modern branch of the monarchy which I am not sure will work.

    Views? Anyone else here who does not self-define as a republican but feels the monarchy should end with the Queen as, in practice, it probably won't work in the future in the same way?
    Why should it not work? The monarchy serves no actual function anyway, there is no 'work' about it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPO92)
    Why should it not work? The monarchy serves no actual function anyway, there is no 'work' about it.
    This is where I am not the traditional republican. I am pro-the monarchy when it is the sort of monarchy of the Queen - the one which was moulded by George V. The next generation have behaved in ways they absolutely would not have got away with in George V's time. I think a lot of people feel the same in Britain, which is why traditional republicans should try to appeal to us instead of remaining on the fringes with their "the Queen does nothing, abolish the monarchy with her in it (even though she is 90)" rhetoric. They would gain a lot more support if they didn't annoy people who like the Queen and the monarchy as it is at the moment, but have doubts about the future.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    We have a thread like this every week...

    I personally don't care about them as long as they mind their own business.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    People probably said the same thing about George VI before QEII became Queen. Sometimes you just don't know how people are going to turn out.


    Le roi est mort, vive le roi!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Hah. Normally I'd groan about yet another monarchy thread, but it's a welcome change for the *******s about the euro referendum.

    No, the monarchy should not end with the Queen. It should end when the public tire of it, which as far as I am concerned may as well be a thousand generations from now.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    This is where I am not the traditional republican. I am pro-the monarchy when it is the sort of monarchy of the Queen - the one which was moulded by George V. The next generation have behaved in ways they absolutely would not have got away with in George V's time. I think a lot of people feel the same in Britain, which is why traditional republicans should try to appeal to us instead of remaining on the fringes with their "the Queen does nothing, abolish the monarchy with her in it (even though she is 90)" rhetoric. They would gain a lot more support if they didn't annoy people who like the Queen and the monarchy as it is at the moment, but have doubts about the future.
    I get what you're saying, but societies are fluid and although there is no functional element to the monarchy from a purely political perspective, it is one of the few symbols of a legacy in Britain left standing. From a cultural conservation stand point, I think it's a good idea to keep it alive.

    I don't see any short or long term reason why we should get rid of a long standing part of British culture. It would take more effort to remove than maintain them I'd wager.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Hah. Normally I'd groan about yet another monarchy thread, but it's a welcome change for the *******s about the euro referendum.

    No, the monarchy should not end with the Queen. It should end when the public tire of it, which as far as I am concerned may as well be a thousand generations from now.
    I mean I would be happy to give the next generation a go, but I think it's possible we could find the monarchy generally ending with the Queen if it doesn't work out. It will certainly be a transition from George V's monarchy, which the Queen still represents, to the new generation which hasn't been without its deep criticisms.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    I mean I would be happy to give the next generation a go, but I think it's possible we could find the monarchy generally ending with the Queen if it doesn't work out. It will certainly be a transition from George V's monarchy, which the Queen still represents, to the new generation which hasn't been without its deep criticisms.
    'If it doesn't work out' is really all you can say about any cause for ending the monarchy and I don't see why it should only apply to after the Queen leaving. I have every confidence it will work out fine under Charles, and under William too. Nevertheless, if it didn't, I would prefer we attempt to adjust the line of succession first to remedy defective monarchs and heirs, rather than simply abandon it outright.
    Offline

    18
    Yes please. The rest of the royal family are a bunch of no-use, sponging, celebrities
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    I am very fond of the Queen and the monarchy when she is the office-holder; however, I feel that she represents the last remnants of the monarchy which was moulded by King George V and Queen Mary, and which has been very popular and successful. The next-in-line seem to represent a new, modern branch of the monarchy which I am not sure will work.

    Views? Anyone else here who does not self-define as a republican but feels the monarchy should end with the Queen as, in practice, it probably won't work in the future in the same way?
    Yes, good points.

    My own view is that the present monarch has been so good at her job, that people become confused and think monarchy is generally like that, rather than that we got lucky with the present occupant. They will get a rude shock when Charles is king, he has made it plain he believes he is entitled to be an activist king.

    I personally would content for the monarchy to step back and become a true figurehead. As it is currently, the monarch's power operates in three levels. The first is the de jure official level; from that perspective, they have immense power to issue decrees, dissolve parliament, commission the ministry and so on. But they don't use it due to convention. On the next level, the de facto official level, is the reality of their use of their powers; as I said, they tend not to use it at all.

    The final level is the informal influence held by the monarch and the royal family, by virtue of their wealth, connections, their position at the centre of British public life, the fact that the matriarch of their clan holds the formal loyalty of the entire military, etc. We have seen that while the Queen has not called on that influence much, her son has. For example, Charles nobbling the National Gallery renovations, the Chelsea Barracks development, his use of his influence to get privileges for quack pseudo-science in the NHS (his office helped to get a professor who opposed homeopathy dismissed).

    If you look at countries like Australia and Canada, the monarchy still operates (through the governor generals) on the first two levels, but because the British royal family doesn't live there, they really don't have that massive informal influence. I think that is positive. In Australia, for example, the Queen actually has no powers, only the governor-general can exercise those powers. The Queen of Australia's only power is to appoint and dismiss the Governor-General on Prime Ministerial advice.

    My ideal set-up would be to have a British Governor-General position held in commission by the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Speaker, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the Archbishop of Canterbury. They would drop the writs for elections, appoint ministers, issues Orders-in-Council, and so on. This would allow the monarch to step back further and become a true figurehead, a symbol of national unity but never to hold real power or influence. If the Windsors do not find that to their satisfaction, we should bring back the Plantagenets by placing the crown on the head of the Duke of Beaufort

    Anyway, I know my ideas are a bit cranky. Overall I think the present monarch is good, but future ones may not be and we should begin some kind of transition now to a system where there is no risk they might use their powers for evil
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    On the contrary, we'd had over a century of model monarchs and the next few generations look likely to be in the same mould. No trouble.

    Besides, the constitution has evolved to such a degree that any transgression by a monarch would be swiftly challenged by Parliament. I think it's safe enough to leave it to the Parliament of the day to handle rather than wasting time on hypotheticals.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    It will certainly be a transition from George V's monarchy, which the Queen still represents, to the new generation which hasn't been without its deep criticisms.
    Every generation has had issues. We've had kings and princes who've gone bonkers. We've had dodgy relations and friendships. The age of celebrity, 24/7 news and a change in how the media / tabloids treat them has altered how much we hear about them, but they're not doing anything they haven't done before.

    Part of the reason "the new generation' generates mixed feelings is because they've much more available than previous generations. You make public appearances and sooner or later you'll do something to annoy someone. And we all know full well how fast people are these days to say something has offended them.

    It's easy to forget, but the Queen has never given an interview. How many times have you seen William or Harry being interviewed? Of course the relationship changes. And so it will again.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    No, purely out of principle. But I'm not particularly bothered, particularly if that idiot Charles is out of the equation.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I have no problem with a monarchy.
    I have a big problem with a tax-payer funded monarchy. Social services and adult social care has been cut hugely and 85 year old men and women have to pay £700 a week or something to go into care. All because apparently there is no money.

    Meanwhile the Queen gets a multi-million tax payer funded party.

    By all means have a Queen or a King but why should the tax-payer foot the bill?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    the Royal family are the cornerstone of our country. do we want to end up like ZImbabwe ?

    i know some people here would say yes.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    Community Assistant
    Sooner it ends the better tbh.....
    :run:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    the Royal family are the cornerstone of our country. do we want to end up like ZImbabwe ?

    i know some people here would say yes.
    Or like the USA. Or France. And so on.

    (Original post by CoolCavy)
    Sooner it ends the better tbh.....:run:
    :five:


    Cavy is a republican :ahee:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I have no problem with a monarchy.
    I have a big problem with a tax-payer funded monarchy. Social services and adult social care has been cut hugely and 85 year old men and women have to pay £700 a week or something to go into care. All because apparently there is no money.

    Meanwhile the Queen gets a multi-million tax payer funded party.

    By all means have a Queen or a King but why should the tax-payer foot the bill?
    This would be a devastating argument...if it were in any way true. The Queen receives none of that money for Her personal enjoyment; it is designated purely for funding the activities of the monarchy on a professional basis. It's ridiculous to expect the Queen to fund that herself as a) it's a service to the State and to the people, and b) doing so would bankrupt anyone who occupied the role.

    It's akin to demanding NHS doctors to pay for their own medical equipment.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah come on off with her head wheres the guillotine?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

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

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