Do you think that we need a royal family? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Lord Waddell
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#121
Report 14 years ago
#121
(Original post by MMA)
The reason we should abolish the monarchy is very simple. Why should the majority of people in Britain worship a bunch of clowns and fools who have not worked for their position in life? It is disgraceful that such a ridiculous institution still exists. An institution that is an open mockery of the just society we are trying to create. The French were 100% right to get rid of their monarchy by chopping off their heads and I advocate we do the same thing to the goons that are the Royal family.
Interesting to see that you advocate the death penalty for someone whos fault was to be born who they are. If people wish to worship the Royal Family, then they should do so. Most people do not, but they respect the Queen and the institution of the monarchy. It may be a mockery of the society that you wish to be create, but it fits in with much of present day society, that we pass things on to our descendants.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#122
Report 14 years ago
#122
(Original post by MMA)
Lord Waddell said:


The reason we should abolish the monarchy is very simple. Why should the majority of people in Britain worship a bunch of clowns and fools who have not worked for their position in life? It is disgraceful that such a ridiculous institution still exists. An institution that is an open mockery of the just society we are trying to create. The French were 100% right to get rid of their monarchy by chopping off their heads and I advocate we do the same thing to the goons that are the Royal family.
That's a little extreme - non?
0
Bastiat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#123
Report 14 years ago
#123
(Original post by JonD)
I assumed he was hinting that UK Republicans are mainly communists.
Which isn't true, by the way.
(Original post by JonD)
If we have any way of controlling her, is that to say that she's out of control? She rarely wields her powers for a reason - if she made a mistake public opinion could lead to the monarchy bieng replaced.
But she shouldn't have that power in the first place. The power that she wields is undemocratic and totally unreasonable.
(Original post by JonD)
Divorces are a crime?
No, but when the Royal Family professes itself as the head of the Church of England, and the successor to the British throne is promiscuous, it's hardly a good role-model for modern Britain.
(Original post by JonD)
Please provide a sources for these "Nazi affiliations".
Prince Phillip, whose four brothers-in-law were high ranking members of the Nazi Party.
Prince Michael, whose father, Baron Gunther von Reibnitz, was an SS Officer. Good enough?
(Original post by JonD)
Do you really buy into the conspiracy theory that the Queen had Diana assassinated because she was going to convert to Islam?
No - don't put words into my mouth - but the death of Princess Diana was suspicious. I, admittedly, have very little knowledge, but as far as I am aware, wasn't she courting the son of Mohammed al-Fayed, and, following his accusations of conspiracy, his businesses were stripped of their Royal Warrants? Co-incidental, I suppose?
(Original post by JonD)
The British public would have removed these leaders a long time ago if their rule was feeble, and they really were ruling with the kind of tyrannical iron fist you seem to be implying they are.
I had not implication of that whatsoever, and once again, this is obvious demonising of my argument, similar to the Communist scaremongering of LibertineNorth's argument.
undemocratic, dictatorship-like grip on our submitting society
Are they elected? No; therefore, it is undemocratic.
Do they have ultimate powers over our armed forces and large parts of society? Yes; therefore, they have a dictator-like grip.
Do we complain? No; because we don't like to point out how hypocritical we are.

We tut when Robert Mugabe starts making constitutional amendments to Zimbabwe, but at least Robert Mugabe was elected, by some proportion of the people, to his role. People saw the riots in Kyrgyzstan earlier this year at Presidential fraud, and in the Ukraine, and the United States in 2000, and it is embarrasing that the British people are so submitting and ignorant that they allow this authoritarian excuse for a Head of State to maintain her control, when worldwide we protest against undemocratic and corrupt governments. This is the sort of ignorance I'm talking about;
(Original post by Lord Waddell)
The Queen does a good job, leave her and her successors be.
-------------
(Original post by LibertineNorth)
You'll find more nepotism in the governments of other G8 countries (not nations, neither the UK nor the Russian Fed. are nations) is just as great, if not greater, than in the UK. None of these societies have wiped out birth privilege, which was what that part of my post was about.
I'm not talking about general birth privilege. Of course some people are born into families who have power and influence, but at least it requires a mandate of the masses to actually put these people into power. At least the 'ruling families', such as the Rockefellers and Bushes, have not, and do not gain their power via an unfair hereditary system, but by the support of their citizens.
(Original post by LibertineNorth)
They are actually very economical with taxpayer's money - there is far less wasted by the Royal Family than by most government departments.
They could be more economical. They could take none of it.
(Original post by LibertineNorth)
They're happy to moan on about the problems of the monarchical system and ride that high-horse until they orgasm, yet do they ever put forward a better alternative?
What about an elected semi-Presidential system? Surely it would make more sense to have a separate Head of State, such as the French's Jacques Chirac, to fulfil the duties of the Presidency according to our wishes, and not his, or her own.
(Original post by LibertineNorth)
The Queen ultimately does have the authority to refuse the Prime Minister's demands. She hinted she would ignore a PM's request to dissolve Parliament once, and the former GG has (no doubt after speaking to the Queen) made significant constitutional moves during the Australian Constitutional Crisis.
Exactly. She picks the Prime Minister, she controls him. We have very little say, but even if we were to elect a President with the same powers, it would be a step in the right direction.

Surely though, at least the most fervent Monarchist must agree that the religious affiliation of the Queen is fundamentally wrong. Britain is multi-cultural, and is intrinsically undemocratic to deny the right of rulership to people based on the religion or race.
0
MMA
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#124
Report 14 years ago
#124
Lord Waddell said:
Interesting to see that you advocate the death penalty for someone whos fault was to be born who they are. If people wish to worship the Royal Family, then they should do so. Most people do not, but they respect the Queen and the institution of the monarchy. It may be a mockery of the society that you wish to be create, but it fits in with much of present day society, that we pass things on to our descendants.
If the Royal Family had any true respect they would renounce their position and stop stealing the British people's money. Every year a ridiculous amount of money is given to the Royal Family. All they can contribute to society in return are racist remarks and Nazi costumes. Their collective behaviour is disgusting. They don't fulfill a worthwhile role- the role would be much better suited to someone who has been elected and has had to work for their position in life, someone with respect and dignity. Not once during this thread has anyone given a logical reason as to why this aristocratic anomaly still exists.
0
Bastiat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#125
Report 14 years ago
#125
(Original post by MMA)
Not once during this thread has anyone given a logical reason as to why this aristocratic anomaly still exists.
Good to see somebody that isn't blinded by the traditional British ignorance that has been expressed by the Monarchists so far in this post.
0
HearTheThunder
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#126
Report 14 years ago
#126
No we don't need them, I mean what do they do exactly...? Besides I've had enough of top page news stories about "Royal family member has the common cold! oh god panic!!!"
0
Golden Maverick
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#127
Report 14 years ago
#127
(Original post by MMA)
If the Royal Family had any true respect they would renounce their position and stop stealing the British people's money. Every year a ridiculous amount of money is given to the Royal Family. All they can contribute to society in return are racist remarks and Nazi costumes. Their collective behaviour is disgusting. They don't fulfill a worthwhile role- the role would be much better suited to someone who has been elected and has had to work for their position in life, someone with respect and dignity. Not once during this thread has anyone given a logical reason as to why this aristocratic anomaly still exists.
Wrong. The monarchy gives net £90 million per year to the taxpayer, do you see a democratically elected head of state doing this? I don't, I see them doing nothing more than the monarchy and costing the taxpayer money.
0
Bastiat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#128
Report 14 years ago
#128
(Original post by Golden Maverick)
Wrong. The monarchy gives net £90 million per year to the taxpayer, do you see a democratically elected head of state doing this?
The role of the Head of State is not to generate revenue.
(Original post by Golden Maverick)
I don't, I see them doing nothing more than the monarchy and costing the taxpayer money.
The cost of democracy should never prohibit its introduction.
0
Golden Maverick
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#129
Report 14 years ago
#129
(Original post by thermoregulatio)
The role of the Head of State is not to generate revenue.

The cost of democracy should never prohibit its introduction.
1. I was addressing his claim that the monarchy costs the public money, it does not.

2. We are a dmocratic nation at the moment, the introduction of an elected head of state will make no difference.
0
Golden Maverick
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#130
Report 14 years ago
#130
Going for repost number 4 here:

Only the Queen, Queen Mother and Duke of Edinburgh are paid directly from the Civil List. Payments to other Royal Family members are reimbursed by the Queen from her personal funds.
(Original post by Golden Maverick)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1411781.stm

Old article, but read it and you'll see in 2001 the monarchy gave net £90million to the exchequer.

The Keeper of the Privy Purse, Sir Michael Peat, said the monarchy effectively costs taxpayers nothing, and is even in credit.

"People are inclined to talk about how much the Queen costs the taxpayer. In fact, the Queen doesn't cost the taxpayer anything," he said.

"The £48m reduction in Head of State expenditure together with the £42m increase in Crown Estate revenue mean that the net annual contribution made by the Queen to the Exchequer has increased by £90m during the last nine years.
All those that used the expense to the taxpayer as their justification for ousting the royal family, please reconsider.
0
MMA
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#131
Report 14 years ago
#131
Golden Maverick said:
Wrong. The monarchy gives net £90 million per year to the taxpayer, do you see a democratically elected head of state doing this? I don't, I see them doing nothing more than the monarchy and costing the taxpayer money.
The head of state is an important role. The monarchy might gain revenue from tourists like animals at a zoo but this should not be a justification for having the monarchy. Every year the amount the monarchy spend is increasing. Once again another monarchist failing to give justification for why it exists.
0
Golden Maverick
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#132
Report 14 years ago
#132
(Original post by MMA)
The head of state is an important role. The monarchy might gain revenue from tourists like animals at a zoo but this should not be a justification for having the monarchy. Every year the amount the monarchy spend is increasing. Once again another monarchist failing to give justification for why it exists.
Read the post above this. The amount the monarchy spends is NOT increasing, and the currently pay 90 million to the taxpayer. Now will you drop the financial argument?

You are advocating getting rid of it, so you need to provide justification for the removal.
0
Bastiat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#133
Report 14 years ago
#133
2. We are a dmocratic nation at the moment, the introduction of an elected head of state will make no difference.
Not entirely democratic. Either
a) the Queen has powers over us which we have not decided to give her, therefore it is undemocratic.
or
b) the Queen has no actual powers over us, in which case she is futile and obsolete.

To achieve democracy and utility, either no Head of State or an elected Head of State is required.
0
Socrates
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#134
Report 14 years ago
#134
Why do we need a head of state. Well, every state in the past has had one. Simply to provide an element of continuity and to have somewhere were power is centralised for certain circumstances. I dunno, I've had a few (and yes, I'm aware that it's mid afternoon) but to be honest, accepted wisdom is on my side.
Just because there has always been one, we should have one? What kind of "wisdom" is that? Surely you can come up with something slightly more coherent.

The Queen ultimately does have the authority to refuse the Prime Minister's demands.
When was the last time that happened? Not in the last hundred years as far as I recall. In case you hadn't realised, we are no longer in the 16th century. It is 2005 - wake up.

It may be a mockery of the society that you wish to be create, but it fits in with much of present day society, that we pass things on to our descendants.
Interesting, very interesting Waddell. I see that you have wisely removed "democratic" from your sentence. Good move. I still await your answer as to how an unelected monarch is a beacon of democracy.

It belongs to the monarch - the PM has very little real power and is merely chief advisor to Her Majesty.
"...the Prime Minister exercises powers (known as the Royal Prerogative) that are constitutionally vested in the monarch and which can be exercised without the approval of parliament."
http://www.answers.com/topic/prime-minister

And you seriously think political parties will not put forward candidates... and that political party's candidates (with all their financial and politicial backing) would not succeed? Come on!
Who said the election of a head of state (should there be one) be exactly in the same way as a parliamentary election? We are after all elected ONE person as opposed to 645 MPs.
0
MMA
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#135
Report 14 years ago
#135
I have already provided justification for the removal.
1. It is unjust that a family should be viewed as superior without earning that position. It is not a fair system and a democratically elected leader would be much more just.
2. They steal millions of pound from the taxpayer every year.
3. Their behaviour is disgraceful. Nazi costumes should not be worn by the the family of the head of state.
4. It is incorrect for the head of state to be the head of the Church.
5. A democratically elected leader would do a better job having a better knowledge of international affairs and politics than these 'Royal' idiots. It is also wrong that an unelected person has powers over us.
0
Golden Maverick
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#136
Report 14 years ago
#136
(Original post by thermoregulatio)
Not entirely democratic. Either
a) the Queen has powers over us which we have not decided to give her, therefore it is undemocratic.
or
b) the Queen has no actual powers over us, in which case she is futile and obsolete.

To achieve democracy and utility, either no Head of State or an elected Head of State is required.
The Queen effectively has no power over us, and so is impotent but not obsolete. The British parliament system is built around the monarch as head of state and has no constitution, if the monarch was to be removed the whole system would have to change.
0
Bastiat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#137
Report 14 years ago
#137
This really is an issue that the Liberal Democrats should sieze - I already know that some Lib Dem MPs support the abolition of the monarchy, such as Norman Baker. They really could become a major constitutional issue for debate.

if the monarch was to be removed the whole system would have to change.
You're right, I didn't realise that replacing the monarchy would cause some work for the government! :eek:
0
Golden Maverick
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#138
Report 14 years ago
#138
1. It is unjust that a family should be viewed as superior without earning that position. It is not a fair system and a democratically elected leader would be much more just.
- You clearly do not view them as superior, nor do I although I acknowledge they are important. If the leader has no power, what does it matter if they are democratically elected or not? You sound like a child who's toy has been taken away with cries of it not being fair; why should people be born into families richer than mine? or with a better family group? There are many more common injustices.

2. They steal millions of pound from the taxpayer every year.
- Do you not read any of my posts? What a load of bollocs.

3. Their behaviour is disgraceful. Nazi costumes should not be worn by the the family of the head of state.
- Fancy dress party, yes it was not sensible given the media attention, but it is not wrong to wear such costumes. Wearing a nazi costume does not mean you sympathise with them. I would argue their behaviour is not disgraceful - performing many charitable duties; perhaps they have their moments, played up by the media of course.

4. It is incorrect for the head of state to be the head of the Church.
- Why? That is how CofE is set up, if you do not accept this there are plenty of other branches of Christianity. How is it incorrect? I didn't know there was a rulebook on religions.

5. A democratically elected leader would do a better job having a better knowledge of international affairs and politics than these 'Royal' idiots. It is also wrong that an unelected person has powers over us.
- They are effectively powerless.
0
Golden Maverick
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#139
Report 14 years ago
#139
(Original post by thermoregulatio)
This really is an issue that the Liberal Democrats should sieze - I already know that some Lib Dem MPs support the abolition of the monarchy, such as Norman Baker. They really could become a major constitutional issue for debate.


You're right, I didn't realise that replacing the monarchy would cause some work for the government! :eek:
I would ask you not to quote parts of sentances to suit your means.
0
Socrates
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#140
Report 14 years ago
#140
You clearly do not view them as superior, nor do I although I acknowledge they are important. If the leader has no power, what does it matter if they are democratically elected or not? You sound like a child who's toy has been taken away with cries of it not being fair; why should people be born into families richer than mine? or with a better family group? There are many more common injustices.
This is a circular argument. If they have no power, why have them? Save me from the tourism mantra - the rest of Europe gets just as mant tourists if not more without a monarchy.

5. A democratically elected leader would do a better job having a better knowledge of international affairs and politics than these 'Royal' idiots. It is also wrong that an unelected person has powers over us.
- They are effectively powerless.
Then why have them? The head of state is not there to bring in revenue or people into the country. I find it insulting that you suggest that people come to Britain just because of the monarcy. Tourists come to Britain to appreciate its history, its places etc etc not the monarchy.
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

Why wouldn't you turn to teachers if you were being bullied?

They might tell my parents (23)
6.74%
They might tell the bully (33)
9.68%
I don't think they'd understand (52)
15.25%
It might lead to more bullying (131)
38.42%
There's nothing they could do (102)
29.91%

Watched Threads

View All