Do you think that we need a royal family? Watch

This discussion is closed.
foxo
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#81
Report 14 years ago
#81
I think that you're taking the Sex Pistols too seriously to want rid of monarchy.

Do you also propose that the taxpayer no longer has to pay for those on dole money? They're not working either.
0
giordano
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#82
Report 14 years ago
#82
Need them? it's rather the other way round-they need you. Nothing sadder than ex-royals, even if enormously rich.

This is a problem for you Brits to solve . Italians happily got rid of their royal family by plebiscite in 1946, and don't miss them one ounce. Neither do the Greeks, or the French (who, of course, resorted to rather drastic methods: well, they only followed your example).
0
GreenMonstrosity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#83
Report 14 years ago
#83
(Original post by giordano)
Need them? it's rather the other way round-they need you. Nothing sadder than ex-royals, even if enormously rich.

This is a problem for you Brits to solve . Italians happily got rid of their royal family by plebiscite in 1946, and don't miss them one ounce. Neither do the Greeks, or the French (who, of course, resorted to rather drastic methods: well, they only followed your example).
On the contrary, I think it is a tribute to our system of Constitutional Monarchy that we have not had to revert to such extreme methods to control the monarch's powers. Our monarch is not an absolute monarch and as long as the monarchy is there, it prevents opportunists like Napoleon and Franco in Spain from filling the void with a system just as bad or worse. If only for that reason, I am firmly in support of the institution of Monarchy.
0
Daragh
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#84
Report 14 years ago
#84
Wahey! Go you! Giordano, I wanted to post about the UK civil war! If you look at the areas with a monarchy, and those without, which seem to be more culturally aware and thinking in the 21st Century?
0
foxo
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#85
Report 14 years ago
#85
(Original post by deej2)
If you look at the areas with a monarchy, and those without, which seem to be more culturally aware and thinking in the 21st Century?
That's a daft and irrelevant question.


Also, Monarchy provide useless tripe for the tabloids to obsess about > they make more sales, improve economy > journalist employment prospects > improving the literacy (slightly) of the idiots who care about whether Prince Harry wears Nazi uniforms or not > improving their English grades > creating more people eligible for degrees > improving Britain.
0
GreenMonstrosity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#86
Report 14 years ago
#86
(Original post by foxo)
That's a daft and irrelevant question.
Why can't the people around here disagree cordially? There is no need to so contemtuously dismiss the ideas of others.
0
foxo
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#87
Report 14 years ago
#87
(Original post by Chiron)
Why can't the people around here disagree cordially? There is no need to so contemtuously dismiss the ideas of others.
Well, it is a daft and irrelevant question in accordance to the argument. In what way is Britain not "culturally aware"? And if Britain is not culturally aware, what does this have to do with monarchy? Doesn't monarchy bring in tourists of different cultures? Aren't you always seeing pictures of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales looking like an arse in front of topless African women?
0
Daragh
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#88
Report 14 years ago
#88
(Original post by foxo)
That's a daft and irrelevant question.


Also, Monarchy provide useless tripe for the tabloids to obsess about > they make more sales, improve economy > journalist employment prospects > improving the literacy (slightly) of the idiots who care about whether Prince Harry wears Nazi uniforms or not > improving their English grades > creating more people eligible for degrees > improving Britain.
That has got to be the most tenuous link I have ever seen!
0
GreenMonstrosity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#89
Report 14 years ago
#89
(Original post by foxo)
Well, it is a daft and irrelevant question. In what way is Britain not "culturally aware"?
Perhaps it is, but I tend to phrase my disapproval a little more politely. What I was unaware of is the fact that Italy etc is more "culturally aware" than Britain :confused: How on earth would you quantify "cultural awareness" anyway?
0
foxo
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#90
Report 14 years ago
#90
(Original post by deej2)
That has got to be the most tenuous link I have ever seen!
Well, it was a joke (and I chuckled whilst writing it).

Enlighten me on why monarchy are holding Britain behind in diversifying our culture?
0
GreenMonstrosity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#91
Report 14 years ago
#91
(Original post by foxo)
Well, it was a joke (and I chuckled whilst writing it).

Enlighten me on why monarchy are holding Britain behind in diversifying our culture?
Who asked that? How much more diverse could Britain be?
0
Daragh
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#92
Report 14 years ago
#92
(Original post by foxo)
Well, it was a joke (and I sniggered whilst writing it).

Enlighten me on why monarchy are holding Britain behind in diversifying our culture?
I do not see the hilairty in discussing whether Britain is or is not culturally aware.
If we have the monarchy, we have an obvious social hierarchy. Which does not help with the peoples perception of our culture, and how there is always going to be someone greater than you. The monarchy is only there now in order fr old conservatives to hark back to the good old Empire days, which is holding us in the past. Ergo, no more monarchy, a chance of living in the present facing the future not the other way round.
0
foxo
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#93
Report 14 years ago
#93
Yes, but monarchy is a large part of our culture and our history. Why should we get rid of it for other peoples acceptance?

Conservatives are also a part of our culture, and according to the election results, a bigger part of our culture than the Liberal Democrats. So, why should we try and hide this part of our culture? Because you don't agree with it?
0
Daragh
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#94
Report 14 years ago
#94
Because, we need to live in the present looking forward, not in the presenmt looking back. The monarchy was part of alot of countrys culture and history (France, Italy, China, Germany) but they have moved on to greater and better things!
0
foxo
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#95
Report 14 years ago
#95
(Original post by deej2)
The monarchy was part of alot of countrys culture and history (France, Italy, China, Germany) but they have moved on to greater and better things!
Such as?

I was in Berlin just over a year ago and I didn't think they seemed more "culturally aware". Perhaps Das Museum Judisches and Das Museum Fur Kunst Islamische were two things you could not find in Britain. I also didn't think they were doing "greater" things than us. The most noticeable difference was the amazing public transport, such as the Ubahn and Trams, as well as some modern architecture, and graffiti seemingly being perceived as art. I didn't once get the idea that Germans were "greater" or "better" than us because of this, though. And I doubt the [lack of] monarchy had anything to do this.

I've also of course been to France, and Italy, and they didn't seem more "culturally aware" or "greater and better". It's a matter of opinion as to what makes a country greater and better. Personally I think that having monarchy has a great part in the identity of our nation and our culture. Am I not entitled to this opinion? That wouldn't be very liberal of you.
0
giordano
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#96
Report 14 years ago
#96
The British monarchy, as the Scandinavian, Belgian, Dutch ones , are pretty harmless things. If gives people a sense of security, tradition, continuity, stability etc etc. As long as you enjoy them, keep them.

Monarchs used to be a lot nastier, in other times and in other places.
0
GreenMonstrosity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#97
Report 14 years ago
#97
If we have the monarchy, we have an obvious social hierarchy.
Yes, so does America and every society on earth.

how there is always going to be someone greater than you.
You know, you are right, the Desiderata reminds us that "..there willalways be greater and lesser peoples than yourself..." People are not made equal by proclomation LOL.

The monarchy is only there now in order fr old conservatives to hark back to the good old Empire days, which is holding us in the past. Ergo, no more monarchy, a chance of living in the present facing the future not the other way round.
The Monarchy is not there for conservative nostalgia. As I said earlier, it has a very real constitutional purpose. Furthermore, what Prime Minister wants to get rid of the honours system and the peerage system ?
0
Socrates
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#98
Report 14 years ago
#98
(Original post by Chiron)
If we have the monarchy, we have an obvious social hierarchy.
Yes, so does America and every society on earth.

how there is always going to be someone greater than you.
You know, you are right, the Desiderata reminds us that "..there willalways be greater and lesser peoples than yourself..." People are not made equal by proclomation LOL.

The monarchy is only there now in order fr old conservatives to hark back to the good old Empire days, which is holding us in the past. Ergo, no more monarchy, a chance of living in the present facing the future not the other way round.
The Monarchy is not there for conservative nostalgia. As I said earlier, it has a very real constitutional purpose. Furthermore, what Prime Minister wants to get rid of the honours system and the peerage system ?
What constitutional purpose does the Queen serve?
0
GreenMonstrosity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#99
Report 14 years ago
#99
(Original post by giordano)
The British monarchy, as the Scandinavian, Belgian, Dutch ones , are pretty harmless things. If gives people a sense of security, tradition, continuity, stability etc etc. As long as you enjoy them, keep them.

Monarchs used to be a lot nastier, in other times and in other places.
The Monarch is a clever ploy to give the prime minister more power than he appears to have, and make the proletariat believe that they run things. The Prime Minister you see has the double advantage of the power of a monarch combined with the authority of an elected official; he can use both parliament and Royal Prerogative. Now what prime minister would want to give that up?
0
GreenMonstrosity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#100
Report 14 years ago
#100
(Original post by zaf1986)
What constitutional purpose does the Queen serve?
To put it very briefly, the Queen is the fount of all power and authority in this country. She is the agreed upon and recognised starting point for the making and passing of laws. If an apolitical entity "owns" the government and the armed forces, then it is a useful check on potential tyrants. In short, we have an apolitical and permanent check on the power that elected officials have. It means that during any government, its officials have a degree of political independence which is not biased towards the party in power. This is not the case in the US. For instance the US president is Commander in Chief of the armed forces, which basically means that the armed forces at any time owe their allegiance to the government in power. If ever there were an impasse in some important matter of government, then the Queen would arbitrate - as she has done in the past.

Political heads of state are divisive. They come and go according to the whims of the electorate. The UK and a large part of the Commonwealth, by contrast, has maintained it's stability and integrity through an allegiance to a non-political head of state. Australia, for example, might be an enthusiastic critic of Britain but voted overwhelmingly in their recent referendum to keep the Queen as their head of state and I imagine that if the same referendum was put to Canada the result would be the same. Loyalty to the Crown, understood primarily in metaphysical and spiritual rather than in political or ethnic terms, may be one of the most important ways of helping to bind together otherwise dangerously atomised and separated communities.
The monarchy keeps a level of autonomy for in an age when governments are elected on the backs of ideologies rather than substance. I would far rather have a symbolic head of state untainted by ideology and petty politics. As some historians have put it, "The Monarch is above the fray".

The Queen is therefore, the highest authority in the land who is conspicuously apolitical, and as such, the starting point which all parties recognise as the independent "fount of power" for the passing of legislation and the running of the country. For a more detailed explanation you may want to read Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, or any constitutional history of England.
0
X
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 (65)
65.66%
No I haven't decided yet (21)
21.21%
Yes but I might change my mind (13)
13.13%

Watched Threads

View All