Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    we definitely should have this celebrity style royal family either. it's all far too much for the modern era.
    Btw, assume you meant shouldn't for this one?

    I mean, I agree with you, they shouldn't be celebrities, but it's not their fault that other people think they are. That's just generic culture these days, to turn anyone in the public eye into celebrities.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    why do you want a heroic leader as a head of state? how are they going to be heroic?
    I want a leader that I can worship, admire and feel a deep personal magnetism and loyalty towards. Someone like my historical heroes.

    These are the qualities he must have if I am to consider them heroic:

    -Bold. They must be willing to violate Christian, liberal humanitarian morality and do deeds that many would consider criminal for the greater good.
    -Exceedingly intelligent.
    -Charismatic
    -An amazing orator
    -A deep grasp of human psychology
    -Emphasise instinct and action over reason

    Basically a Carlylean wonder-worker.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by niteninja1)
    The queen doesn't legally own most of the palaces. She does however own her Norfolk estate
    do you think she should be receiving the salary she gets, or the revenues from the crown lands?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cato the Elder)
    I want a leader that I can worship, admire and feel a deep personal magnetism and loyalty towards. Someone like my historical heroes.
    what? are you joking?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    do you think she should be receiving the salary she gets, or the revenues from the crown lands?
    She doesn't actually get the revenues from the crown lands they go to a fund that she can only claim from not access. And as for the salary she has had more meeting (foreign leaders etc) than any other head of state in the world
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moura)
    I am very against the Monarchy, I don't think it's right morally, but I would also hate to have a president, I would hate to end up with one person head of state and with all the power.
    A president doesn't necessarily have power. The German president doesn't have any.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Btw, assume you meant shouldn't for this one?

    I mean, I agree with you, they shouldn't be celebrities, but it's not their fault that other people think they are. That's just generic culture these days, to turn anyone in the public eye into celebrities.
    yes* sorry, obviously I'm saying they shouldn't be state-sponsored celebrities like they basically are today. and the BBC should chill the **** out when reporting on anything they do :lol:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by niteninja1)
    And as for the salary she has had more meeting (foreign leaders etc) than any other head of state in the world
    yeah, because she's antique. not because she's skillful.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    yeah, because she's antique. not because she's skillful.
    Last year she had 400+ meeting I would say that fairly good going for a 90year old
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moura)
    but I just really think it's wrong to have one family undemocratically put as head of state funded by tax payers to live in luxury, just because they were born that way.
    I agree, it's very unfair on them. Because they don't live a life of luxury. Research what they do a bit more. They have a ridiculous timetable. Imagine having those expectations of you, and the pressure and alienation from others, as a child. **** that, I wouldn't do it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    what? are you joking?
    Nope. I really am that abject and servile. Christopher Hitchens would be ashamed.

    But I am not that inadequate, and I have enough pride in myself to know that, unfortunately, I am closer to my impeccably high standards than most.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I don't particularly like the Royal Family, but neither do I want a democratic republic. Until we get a reincarnation of Cromwell or Churchill to lead this nation the monarchy should remain in place.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Go live in one of the hundreds of republics if you don't like the monarchy.
    Also fyi saying 'but it's 2017 monarchs are outdated xD' is not an argument.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    ...why?
    you aren't exactly going to be the leader so how is it going to serve your interests? unless you count potential sycophancy as an "interest"?
    Why do you support democracy? You aren't going to be the leader either unless you have the wealth and connections to embark on a political campaign.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That'sGreat)
    Personally, I hate the idea of having a Queen/King doing nothing while there are still so many in poverty, I say nothing, but they tirelessly travel to and from Australia for lavish holidays, how brave...
    There are several issues here which are just plain nonsense. First, poverty is at historically lows in this country. Secondly, the Sovereign has numerous constitutional duties attached to being head of state. Thirdly, the idea that official engagements - visiting countries where you are equally their head of state - are somehow "holidays" is bizarre; the Royal Family tend to spend their actual holidays in Balmoral or Sandringham.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dragonzrmetal)
    I agree, it's very unfair on them. Because they don't live a life of luxury. Research what they do a bit more. They have a ridiculous timetable. Imagine having those expectations of you, and the pressure and alienation from others, as a child. **** that, I wouldn't do it.
    Another reason to add to my list then
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Whilst I'm not necessarily hostile to the idea of a monarchy, what I do oppose is a hereditary monarchy. Becoming the head of state by birth does not guarantee that the successor has the necessary attributes to be an effective leader; sure, they are schooled in the role from birth and do, largely, a fairly decent job of it, but it is far from the optimal situation. Unfortunately, without it being hereditary, there are few other ways to determine the successor without an election, which then turns the role into a presidency and not a monarchy.

    One alternative could be to have an appointed monarchy, but this also has flaws. If the monarch appoints their successor, there is easily scope for corruption or nepotism. An independent commission could arguably alleviate this issue, but that raises questions of who in fact should sit on this commission, and whether or not the commission would have enough knowledge to identify the optimal successor.

    Overall, I think enlightened absolutism has the potential to be the most effective way of governing the state, yet the practical limitations of preventing a tyrant from ascending to the throne, and preventing rampant corruption and nepotism, create barriers that are hard to reconcile with this form of governance. Our present form of representative democracy with a constitutional monarchy is far from perfect, but it is effective at maintaining relative national stability and has served as a model that nearly all modern states have followed; a testament to its merit. Whilst I may disagree with the basic premises of a hereditary monarchy, the royal family brings in a lot of tourism that creates jobs and tax revenue, so at least on pragmatic grounds the continued existence of the institution is justifiable, at least until we can find a better replacement that can bypass the flaws mentioned above.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demaistre)
    Why do you support democracy? You aren't going to be the leader either unless you have the wealth and connections to embark on a political campaign.
    who says I want to be the leader?
    who says wealth and connections are necessarily decisive of political outcomes?
    what is a better alternative to democracy even if that's true?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    No.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    who says I want to be the leader?
    who says wealth and connections are necessarily decisive of political outcomes?
    what is a better alternative to democracy even if that's true?
    Who says someone who supports authoritarianism wants to be leader? That's what prompted me to reply.

    Pretty much every person who has ever reached high office? If you don't have wealth or connections with the right people you get nowhere.

    Elected Monarchy along the lines of the Anglo Saxons, or just a monarchy in general. Democracy isn't the be all and end all of political systems.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • 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.