Will we ever get rid of the royal family? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Bagration
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#61
Report 11 years ago
#61
Even if the Royal Family cost ten times what they do now, I would still never call myself a Republican. Evidently, 61p a year for a Royal Family who who are a vital part of British history and culture and commit to dozens, hundreds maybe of state visits every year is not a hard price to pay.

I don't see what "modern, democratic and liberal" have to do with us having a monarchy at all. Historically our country has always been more democratic than its European counterparts who had no Monarchies; Franco's Spain, Hitler's Germany, Schuschnigg's Austria, Milosevic's Serbia, Mussolini's Italy, Horthy's Hungary, etc etc, and always more Liberal than the democratic European countries - say, France, Norway, Sweden (the welfare state hellholes of Europe.)

Frankly, I can't see a time in history that isn't over two hundred years ago where there was a more Liberal and Democratic country than the United Kingdom in Europe.

Can someone explain to me how you can "outgrow" a political concept? "We've modernised and don't need it anymore" isn't an explanation, either.
0
oriel historian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#62
Report 11 years ago
#62
(Original post by Dac.)
ive been negged and repped already. wtf. why are people such pussies they wont sign it. if i want to know who you are i just have to pay £3.50.
Mate that doesn't ever do you any favours! I know it's annoying but it just gives them an excuse. Although I thought D & D was meant to be 'above' the rep system.

As for the monarchy, I'd love to see the day when they don't exist but until we sensibly are able to consider replacing the monarchy with a 'secular' president who essentially does the same thing we just get to vote for them then our republican arguments aren't going to win the day. Getting rid of the monarchy is probably something that would need considerable debate in parliament given that we really would need a written constitution if we had a president. Which, is probably a few centuries overdue but hey so's socialism
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#63
Report 11 years ago
#63
(Original post by jgupta)
It is a political stunt because they obviously did not *need* to have him out there...in fact his presence there was more likely to harm rather than aid the effort.
No individual soldier is 'needed' in that sense, however as a member of his regiment he should've been there.

Secondly the whole "oh no the press have found out" was such utter bull*****. If he wanted to go and not get found out...it would not have been that hard...
Oh yes, because nobody would notice a significant member of the most famous family on Earth wandering around? And, of course, the media wouldn't have noticed he's disappearance from the UK...

he / they wanted to be found, and either way its improved their public image.
Why should they hide it?

I would rather 'they' as a concept didn't exist anymore - we don't need a royal family, we've outgrown having a hereditary monarch as our head of state.
We clearly have not.

The only reason we keep it, therefore, is because perhaps it would be too much effort to abolish it, or because 'its tradition'.
No it isn't, the reason we keep it is because most people agree with it, like it, and the fact that it works better than the alternatives. And yes, tradition is a very good reason for keeping it too.
0
oriel historian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#64
Report 11 years ago
#64
(Original post by Ian Douglas Smith GCLM ID)
Even if the Royal Family cost ten times what they do now, I would still never call myself a Republican. Evidently, 61p a year for a Royal Family who who are a vital part of British history and culture and commit to dozens, hundreds maybe of state visits every year is not a hard price to pay.

I don't see what "modern, democratic and liberal" have to do with us having a monarchy at all. Historically our country has always been more democratic than its European counterparts who had no Monarchies; Franco's Spain, Hitler's Germany, Schuschnigg's Austria, Milosevic's Serbia, Mussolini's Italy, Horthy's Hungary, etc etc, and always more Liberal than the democratic European countries - say, France, Norway, Sweden (the welfare state hellholes of Europe.)

Frankly, I can't see a time in history that isn't over two hundred years ago where there was a more Liberal and Democratic country than the United Kingdom in Europe.

Can someone explain to me how you can "outgrow" a political concept? "We've modernised and don't need it anymore" isn't an explanation, either.
Not to be a total pedant but Mussolini's Italy was a monarchy...

And Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland are hardly the welfare state hellholes of Europe. They, along with France, certainly do attract people because of the welfare state which provides good job security and benefits of a well-catered for society. But that's just me.
0
Joanna May
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#65
Report 11 years ago
#65
I wouldn't ever want to get rid of the monarchy. If we did, we'd have to have a new Head of State, and that would mean someone like Bush or Sarkozy. Sarkozy is amusing, but he's a national embarrassment. Likewise, we'd probably end up with someone equally crap.
0
oriel historian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#66
Report 11 years ago
#66
(Original post by Joanna May)
I wouldn't ever want to get rid of the monarchy. If we did, we'd have to have a new Head of State, and that would mean someone like Bush or Sarkozy. Sarkozy is amusing, but he's a national embarrassment. Likewise, we'd probably end up with someone equally crap.
Or we could end up with someone like Mary Robinson or Mary McAleese both respectable and well-liked presidents of Ireland. I'm sure there are people like that in Britain; Daily Mail-style scaremongering over potential 'presidents' is silly. Don't you have any faith in the electorate to be able to elect someone effective? I know our parents elected John Major but perhaps something will happen :rolleyes:
0
jgupta
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#67
Report 11 years ago
#67
(Original post by Joanna May)
I wouldn't ever want to get rid of the monarchy. If we did, we'd have to have a new Head of State, and that would mean someone like Bush or Sarkozy. Sarkozy is amusing, but he's a national embarrassment. Likewise, we'd probably end up with someone equally crap.
yes but we'd elect the equally crap guy :P
0
Joanna May
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#68
Report 11 years ago
#68
(Original post by oriel historian)
Or we could end up with someone like Mary Robinson or Mary McAleese both respectable and well-liked presidents of Ireland. I'm sure there are people like that in Britain; Daily Mail-style scaremongering over potential 'presidents' is silly. Don't you have any faith in the electorate to be able to elect someone effective? I know our parents elected John Major but perhaps something will happen :rolleyes:
People voted in Sarkozy and Bush though. And Mussolini. I don't trust the electorate to turn up anymore, never mind vote a sensible leader in...
0
Felix Ross
Badges: 0
#69
Report 11 years ago
#69
(Original post by Joanna May)
I wouldn't ever want to get rid of the monarchy. If we did, we'd have to have a new Head of State, and that would mean someone like Bush or Sarkozy. Sarkozy is amusing, but he's a national embarrassment. Likewise, we'd probably end up with someone equally crap.
I confirm it! Every time I go abroad, I'm afraid of what he recently has done so that we(the french) look like a bunch of weirdo...
0
Muppety_Kid
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#70
Report 11 years ago
#70
I doubt they'll ever get rid of the royal family - it'd create a power vacuum, and who'd fill it...?
0
Joanna May
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#71
Report 11 years ago
#71
(Original post by Felix Ross)
I confirm it! Every time I go abroad, I'm afraid of what he recently has done so that we(the french) look like a bunch of weirdo...
I was glad when he got elected, he seemed like a man who would actually pull France back into line and do something. However, since he married Carla, I can't take him seriously. Not that I blame him for marrying her as soon as he could...
0
Fevernova
Badges: 0
#72
Report 11 years ago
#72
I cannot believe this thread. I perfectly understand some arguments over the abolition of the monarchy but how much they cost the taxpayer has to be the most naive argument ever. £37 million a year is absolutely terrific value. As the article states that's 61p per person!

MP's expenses was well over £80 million last year?! And that's just one example of the shocking waste of taxpayers money I'm sure there are far better examples of taxpayers moeny going to waste. Paying for the Royal Famly isn't one of them.

And I haven't even started on the fact that they bring in Hundreds of millions in tourism alone to Britain. And anybody who claims that the majority of tourists aren't interested in the Royal Family must be deluded in the extreme.
0
Felix Ross
Badges: 0
#73
Report 11 years ago
#73
(Original post by Joanna May)
I was glad when he got elected, he seemed like a man who would actually pull France back into line and do something. However, since he married Carla, I can't take him seriously. Not that I blame him for marrying her as soon as he could...
You know, I have done everything I could for him to get elected, as you did, I believed he was the man. However he is not.
0
Jerry Meandering
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#74
Report 11 years ago
#74
(Original post by Fevernova)
And I haven't even started on the fact that they bring in Hundreds of millions in tourism alone to Britain. And anybody who claims that the majority of tourists aren't interested in the Royal Family must be deluded in the extreme.
I always find this an engaging argument. Where does this idea come from exactly? Buckingham Palace isn't even the #1 tourist attraction in London (it's beaten by the Eye and the Tower) let alone Britain. As a matter of fact, the Palace of Versaille receives three times as many visitors as Buckingham Palace every year and it hasn't had a royal posterior sitting in the throne room for two hundred years. I really think this royal family/tourism equation is vastly overstated. And again, even if it isn't - tourism really should'nt be dictating your constitutional arrangements.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#75
Report 11 years ago
#75
(Original post by Jerry Meandering)
As a matter of fact, the Palace of Versaille receives three times as many visitors as Buckingham Palace every year
Presumably because Buckingham Palace is only open to the public for a few months a year...
0
Fevernova
Badges: 0
#76
Report 11 years ago
#76
(Original post by Jerry Meandering)
I always find this an engaging argument. Where does this idea come from exactly? Buckingham Palace isn't even the #1 tourist attraction in London (it's beaten by the Eye and the Tower) let alone Britain. As a matter of fact, the Palace of Versaille receives three times as many visitors as Buckingham Palace every year and it hasn't had a royal posterior sitting in the throne room for two hundred years. I really think this royal family/tourism equation is vastly overstated.
It's not just Buckingham Palace is it though? Windsor Castle. Kensington Palace. And why do people go to the Tower of London? Oh that's right.... the Crown Jewels.

Obviously this argument could carry on forever as many tourists who are inspired to come to Britain spurred on by a fascination with the royalty and royal history will be spending money in a variety of other places. The sum can't be accurately calculated. I'd be confident though that the money they bring in for tourism adaquately covers the meagre amount that they take from taxpayers money.

(Original post by Jerry Meandering)
And again, even if it isn't - tourism really should'nt be dictating your constitutional arrangements.
Oh I totally agree. But my post was more to the point that the OP made about the money that we spend on them means that they should be abloished.
0
jgupta
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#77
Report 11 years ago
#77
(Original post by Jerry Meandering)
I always find this an engaging argument. Where does this idea come from exactly? Buckingham Palace isn't even the #1 tourist attraction in London (it's beaten by the Eye and the Tower) let alone Britain. As a matter of fact, the Palace of Versaille receives three times as many visitors as Buckingham Palace every year and it hasn't had a royal posterior sitting in the throne room for two hundred years. I really think this royal family/tourism equation is vastly overstated. And again, even if it isn't - tourism really should'nt be dictating your constitutional arrangements.
I agree...people come to London to experience the general culture etc not because of the Royal Family...and even if it did...so what?
0
Collingwood
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#78
Report 11 years ago
#78
God Save the Queen!
0
AntiIB-er
Badges: 0
#79
Report 11 years ago
#79
The royal family is basically a smooth-operating dictatorship in disguise. They appear to be so harmless and they seem to have such place and purpose in British Society. It is all a complete sham. they cost a fortune and they run British society without anyone knowing. Even over here we're discomforted knowing that when the queen gets ousted in England she is going to go Hitler on us.
0
eulerwaswrong
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#80
Report 11 years ago
#80
they cost us loads of oney each year.

But they sorta own britain so - we cant really argue
0
X
new posts
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

How did your AQA A-level Business Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (44)
16.42%
The paper was reasonable (131)
48.88%
Not feeling great about that exam... (60)
22.39%
It was TERRIBLE (33)
12.31%

Watched Threads

View All