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

Should the Queen be the last Monarch? Watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JRKinder)
    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.
    I like your point about being a suitable monarch isn't hereditary. However, while I think I would quite happily go ahead with your idea in another era, we must remember that the monarch doesn't actually hold much power. It's true that the Media, with all its commentary on the minute detail of the lives of the Royal Family, does weild power - but not the sort of power which would result in something like a change in law (unless the monarch did something really bad). So I don't think that the monarch's having a personality and qualities to suit their role is as important now as it used to be.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I hate the idea of the monarchy.The whole thing reeks of undeserved privilege.I mean we have to call her your majesty.As though there is something particularly majestic about a rich old woman.No she's just an old woman.There are lots of human beings who have greater worth than her.I don't see why we should have to bow to her and pretend she is superior to the rest of us.Because that's basically what monarchy is.Pretending a group of people are superior to yourself just because they have money and power.The queen is not superior to me.And that's basically why I don't like it. I don't like the idea that someone is superior just because of gene's.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by richpanda)
    No way. Historically, they are very important and help to keep what little culture there is, alive. Also they are a benefit economically and in international relations.
    little culture?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demaistre)
    Who says someone who supports authoritarianism wants to be leader? That's what prompted me to reply.
    I wasn't talking about authoritarianism, I was talking about an absence of democracy whereby you don't even get a say or check on power/policy. so it effectively be to firstly remove yourself from a venue of influence (democracy) and then to just hope for the best. so it's rule via luck. but not even that - it's going to be likely tyrannical and anti-citizen because they can do whatever they want with their absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    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.
    is that to say people from poorer backgrounds are shut out? because that's just silly

    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.
    it's basically the only system that works for liberalism
    and by liberalism, I mean actual liberalism. limited government.
    and yes, constitutions are good for liberalism as well.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Treblebee)
    I like your point about being a suitable monarch isn't hereditary. However, while I think I would quite happily go ahead with your idea in another era, we must remember that the monarch doesn't actually hold much power. It's true that the Media, with all its commentary on the minute detail of the lives of the Royal Family, does weild power - but not the sort of power which would result in something like a change in law (unless the monarch did something really bad). So I don't think that the monarch's having a personality and qualities to suit their role is as important now as it used to be.
    Yes I agree with you in that regard; you're right that the monarch has few actual powers in today's society, which is something I agree with in the basis that it's hereditary. My proposition was aimed generally as a system of governance where the head of state does have power, so there would need to be a big overhaul to make it possible in modern-day Britain
    Offline

    21
    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.

    Having an elected, powerless head of state could work... but how would we even choose them. Ideally it could be someone who has done loads for charity or something... but it would probably just end up some posh private school kid whose daddy paid for him/her to get there. Kind of like we already have really. If there was a good alternative suggested then I would be very strongly in agreement.

    I don't really feel comfortable with the idea that they bring in tourism. Royalists say it all the time but I haven't seen any proof. I think our history and our heritage/buildings etc. bring in the tourism. People still go to France! No one comes to England just to see the queen. If someone showed me some good evidence that the fact that we have a monarchy is what persuades tourists to come here rather than just saying it then I would like to see it, maybe I just haven't seen it yet. To be fair when they make public appearances here and abroad they do bring in the crowds... 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 just think it says something really bad about the country. They don't really have any special qualities... though I do think the queen is pretty great doing all she does at her age. She does probably have the best healthcare in the world though.
    True. It's not like her family led the battles for your freedom, the uk royal family isn't just significant to the UK but it many other countries too.
    • Community Assistant
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    There is some value in having an apolitical head of state, so on the whole I would say no, we should keep the monarchy - but I do wish the royals would act more like the Scandinavian royals, ie doing normal jobs and paying their way. The Queen has a vast private fortune, if her family doesn't want to get proper jobs then she can pay them out of her own pocket.

    If it were up to me, I would:

    Scrap the Sovereign Grant and make all property and assets held by the Sovereign (the Royal Collection, the Crown Jewels etc), the Crown Estate, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall publicly owned (as some kind of sovereign wealth fund). These estates would stop providing the Queen and her family a private income.

    The Queen would still live in Buckingham Palace and have access to Windsor Castle (although she wouldn't own or have any control over either), but all other royals would have to live in their privately-owned homes, or start paying proper market rate rents to live in the apartments of Clarence House / St James's Palace.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    God save the queen
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    I wasn't talking about authoritarianism, I was talking about an absence of democracy whereby you don't even get a say or check on power/policy. so it effectively be to firstly remove yourself from a venue of influence (democracy) and then to just hope for the best. so it's rule via luck. but not even that - it's going to be likely tyrannical and anti-citizen because they can do whatever they want with their absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.



    is that to say people from poorer backgrounds are shut out? because that's just silly



    it's basically the only system that works for liberalism
    and by liberalism, I mean actual liberalism. limited government.
    and yes, constitutions are good for liberalism as well.
    No leader in history has had absolute power they have to keep people somewhat happy and comfortable or they get overthrown.

    Not silly at all they pretty much effectively are.

    Well I suppose that's where you and I differ as I don't like Liberalism.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That'sGreat)
    What are your opinions on having a monarch? They cost the tax payer millions, but also bring in a lot of tourism as well. 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... However, we as of yet, lack a plan on how we would do this without losing millions in tourism? Do we sell the castles, do we turn them into lavish hotels and restaurants, do we open them up to the public? People don't come to see the Queen, they come to see the palace, so wouldn't you earn more by opening them up and turning them into museums and hotels and restaurants?
    Oh look it's this none debate again.

    They don't cost anything they receive a grant from the government administering their own assets.

    In other words they give money to the government as they only take a small%

    Look up the crown estate


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demaistre)
    No leader in history has had absolute power they have to keep people somewhat happy and comfortable or they get overthrown.
    so therefore you're technically arguing that every possible system involving people is a democracy based on this. I mean, it would have to be. the mere possibility of overthrow would mena that the people have all the power. you're clearly setting your threshold *very* low :lol:

    Not silly at all they pretty much effectively are.
    how.

    Well I suppose that's where you and I differ as I don't like Liberalism.
    what even do you like then
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheGreatImposter)
    God save the queen
    And everyone else, too, I hope!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    so therefore you're technically arguing that every possible system involving people is a democracy based on this. I mean, it would have to be. the mere possibility of overthrow would mena that the people have all the power. you're clearly setting your threshold *very* low :lol:



    how.



    what even do you like then
    In a sense they are as a leader only really governs with the consent or apathy of the majority of the populace, but there is a difference between that and western Liberal democracy.

    Are you seriously asking how? How many leaders have we had come from a poor or working class background? About one.
    • Offline

      20
      (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.

      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.
      You've just described Hitler :fuhrer:
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Snufkin)
      There is some value in having an apolitical head of state, so on the whole I would say no, we should keep the monarchy - but I do wish the royals would act more like the Scandinavian royals, ie doing normal jobs and paying their way. The Queen has a vast private fortune, if her family doesn't want to get proper jobs then she can pay them out of her own pocket.
      She does. The Civil List (replaced with the Sovereign support grant) only ever covered the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh (and the former Queen while she was still alive). Other Royals will get travel costs etc paid when they are carrying out duties on behalf of the Queen, but their income is entirely private.

      Scrap the Sovereign Grant and make all property and assets held by the Sovereign (the Royal Collection, the Crown Jewels etc), the Crown Estate, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall publicly owned (as some kind of sovereign wealth fund). These estates would stop providing the Queen and her family a private income.
      While the Duchy of Cornwall is essentially a private estate providing income to the Prince of Wales, the Crown Estate effectively works already as a profit-making enterprise for the state.
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      We should definitely keep the monarchy. It is much more important than people realise. She may not wield any real power but the queen is hugely important constitutionally. Our entire system of government, our entire legal system has been developed around the monarch. You can't just take the monarch out of the picture because our state can't function without it. You would have to write a new UK constitution from page one.

      People in the UK take political stability for granted because the system we have has provided that for us for centuries but if you get rid of that system, everything would be up in the air. It would cause massive economic problems and could even lead violence.

      I don't understand why you would destroy a well functioning and stable state and leave a massive hole in the constitution for what are symbolic reasons.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by demaistre)
      In a sense they are as a leader only really governs with the consent or apathy of the majority of the populace, but there is a difference between that and western Liberal democracy.
      yeah but, still, your threshold for "consent" in this respect is so low it's hardly even consent - it's apathetic toleration of something they *don't* consent to.

      Are you seriously asking how? How many leaders have we had come from a poor or working class background? About one.
      the ol' "correlation = causation" reasoning I take it.
      • Community Assistant
      • Clearing and Applications Advisor
      Offline

      21
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by L i b)
      She does. The Civil List (replaced with the Sovereign support grant) only ever covered the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh (and the former Queen while she was still alive). Other Royals will get travel costs etc paid when they are carrying out duties on behalf of the Queen, but their income is entirely private.
      The royals' income is not entirely private - they all receive money indirectly from the Sovereign Grant and the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall via the Queen, who in effect pays the living costs of her children and grandchildren. This may not be tax-payer money but that does not mean it is private income either, it isn't. I maintain that the Sovereign Grant should be abolished and all ties between the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall and the Monarch/Royal Family be severed. The Queen has a vast private fortune, why shouldn't she use it to fund her family's lifestyle?

      While the Duchy of Cornwall is essentially a private estate providing income to the Prince of Wales, the Crown Estate effectively works already as a profit-making enterprise for the state.
      It isn't just Cornwall, the Duchy of Lancaster also provides an income for the Queen (and in effect, her family as well).
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by sleepysnooze)
      yeah but, still, your threshold for "consent" in this respect is so low it's hardly even consent - it's apathetic toleration of something they *don't* consent to.



      the ol' "correlation = causation" reasoning I take it.
      They consent due to the fact they don't care enough to do anything about it, in a similar way non voters in the UK usually don't care who is in power.

      No it's the 'ol' observing how pretty much every democracy in existence operates.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by demaistre)
      They consent due to the fact they don't care enough to do anything about it, in a similar way non voters in the UK usually don't care who is in power.
      ...wow. I can't believe you just compared those two absolutely different cases. I'm fascinated at your point of view.

      No it's the 'ol' observing how pretty much every democracy in existence operates.
      it's not the rule though. just because wealthy people happen to be more competent it's not to say they're competent BECAUSE they're wealthy. literally what is stopping poorer people contesting elections?
     
     
     
  1. 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.

  2. Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  3. 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.

  4. 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.