Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    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.

    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.
    I have never said that people come to Britain only for the monarchy, yet it is one of the reasons- part of the history.

    The head of state is there to be head of state, but the current head of state brings in money and increases tourism for the country, along with being part of the British national identity for many people. Why replace this with some Beeblebrox with none of these positive aspects?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    I would ask you not to quote parts of sentances to suit your means.
    Firstly, I'll quote exactly what I like. Secondly, the context of the sentence makes no particular difference;
    My quote
    if the monarch was to be removed the whole system would have to change.
    The original
    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.
    Considering that the second part of the sentence bears no relation to the first, and that it is gramatically incorrect, means that I have every legitimate purpose of quoting only those parts which justify my argument. I do not disagree - the current system is based around the monarch, but it was the second part (which should have been in a new sentence) to which I took objection, and therefore fairly quoted only that part.

    Thirdly, I have no intention whatsoever of entering a personal debate with yourself, but merely expect you to realise the illegitimacy of your sentence structure and the circular hypocrisy of you argument.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    Why replace this with some Beeblebrox with none of these positive aspects?
    Because it is currently, fundamentally undemocratic. Again, if the Royal Family has powers, they display dictatorship-like qualities. If they have none, they are obsolete and bureaucratic, and should be removed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    Firstly, I'll quote exactly what I like. Secondly, the context of the sentence makes no particular difference;

    Thirdly, I have no intention whatsoever of entering a personal debate with yourself, but merely expect you to realise the illegitimacy of your sentence structure and the circular hypocrisy of you argument.
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    4) When you respond please do not quote individual lines at a time - if you do so the context of the original quote may be lost.
    If you feel like quoting what you like feel free, but in the future it might earn you warnings.

    As for the sentence, it does make sense although it would have been better perhaps with a semicolon or a new sentence.

    If you would like to elaborate on how my argument was hypocritical, I'd be happy to decide whether to acknowledge your argument.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    Because it is currently, fundamentally undemocratic. Again, if the Royal Family has powers, they display dictatorship-like qualities. If they have none, they are obsolete and bureaucratic, and should be removed.
    They do not have powers, their role is predominantly ceremonial, this does not render them obsolete, merely impotent as I have said before.

    Perhaps you would like to explain why a lack of powers means they should be removed - there would be revenue lost among other things and from what I can see nothing practical gained.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    Perhaps you would like to explain why a lack of powers means they should be removed - there would be revenue lost among other things and from what I can see nothing practical gained.
    The role of a head of state is, in my opinion, a figure who is not necessarily politically orientated and biased, but a fair representative of the people, chosen and elected by them.

    We should have the right to choose our leaders, and our current First Past the Post system does not give us direct control over our Head of Government. Personally, I think a Proportional Representation system would improve on this, but that's a different argument. We should have the right to choose who, if anybody, is our representative, and it should not be confined to one white, Christian, millionaire family like the Windsors. Britain is a multi-cultural society, and whether you like it or not, our leaders should reflect that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    The role of a head of state is, in my opinion, a figure who is not necessarily politically orientated and biased, but a fair representative of the people, chosen and elected by them.

    We should have the right to choose our leaders, and our current First Past the Post system does not give us direct control over our Head of Government. We should have the right to choose who, if anybody, is our representative, and it should not be confined to one white, Christian, millionaire family like the Windsors. Britain is a multi-cultural society, and whether you like it or not, our leaders should reflect that.
    I am very happy with Britain being multicultural, and I am not stopping anyone from becoming one of our leaders. I am bemused by you believing we should remove the monarchy because it has no power but attach all this significance to having a democratically elected head of state - what difference does it make if they have no power; I would suggest you are the hypocrite in this argument.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Why replace this with some Beeblebrox with none of these positive aspects?
    I feel like I'm repeating myself. Because the queen is not democratic!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    I am very happy with Britain being multicultural, and I am not stopping anyone from becoming one of our leaders.
    The monarchy in the United Kingdom is an exclusively white, Christian, hereditary group controlled by one family. That's the central unifying aspect of all monarchies worldwide.

    If you support the monarchy, essentially, you stop Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Atheists, Agnostics, Black People, People of mixed heritage, Capitalists, Communists, Socialists, Liberals, Authoritarians and almost any other group you can think of from becoming the Head of State. All the members of the Royal Family fit a very British, upper class, Christian model, and in the modern world, where we supposedly reject prejudice and discrimination against ethnic, religious, and political minorities, this rapidly decreasing group is controlling the rest of our diverse society.

    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    I am bemused by you believing we should remove the monarchy because it has no power but attach all this significance to having a democratically elected head of state - what difference does it make if they have no power
    I want a Head of State with power, elected into their position by a mandate from the British public. I want a system similar to France's where Jacques Chirac is their democratically elected leader, with power to change the Prime Minister, and, I believe, members of his or her Cabinet. And by the way, Jacques Chirac doesn't have a fortune estimated at over £1 billion for no work whatsoever, unlike our present Queen.

    This sort of system would allow the leader to be chosen by the people, and the style of government to be chosen by the people. It is the only fair and democratic way of running a modern, multicultural society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    Apart from the fact that you have spelt "guaranteer" wrong, how exactly does the queen:

    a) do a good job - when she has no job, after all the Royal Perogative now belongs to the PM.
    b) guarantee our liberties and democracy? Why does a democracy need a head of state anyway? We are represented by the people we elect, not by people who think they are better than the rest of us. We are supposed to be a meritocratic society, the instituition of the monarcy defies that notion.


    There's no way she couldn't. Everything that the PM "requests" the queen to do, is in fact a "demand". The queen has no power, it has already been transferred to the PM. Its actually quite nifty, the PM can exercise all the powers of the monarch without actually being the monarch himself! Great for PMs, not so great for the rest of us.


    The monarch was no doubt sometime ago a symbol of Britain but it is no way a symbol of democracy - a nondemocratic head of state is the symbol of democracy :rofl: - come on Waddell you can do better than this.

    Why have you assumed:
    a) We even need a President
    b) If we have one instead of the Queen, he has to come from a political party
    c) Hell, why does he even need to be a politician, if he is replacing the queen.

    IMO, if we do we have a president, the only difference will be that he/she will be a symbol of our democracy - because we, the people - will vote for him/her.
    Zaf, the Queen does have a job. An actual day job. She spend the day reading The famour "Red Boxes" containing state papers from every government department, and is kept up to date in the government's activities. She carries out investitures and signs legislation into law. In addition she is the country's most senior diplomant. That is her day job. it is a real job and a stressful and tiresome one too. Every democracy has a head of state, ours just happens to be unelected. Actually technically that isn't true. Many people assume the monarchy is hereditary by law when in fact every new monarch is acclaimed by parliament. Which technically means, parliament votes in the Monarch. The idea of hereditary priveledge is not at odds with a meritocracy; in a meritocracy you are given an opportunity on the basis of ability, nothing more. Do you then oppose Richard Branson's children inheriting his wealth because it is "unmeritocratic"? Waddell is actually right, our non-elected head of state is a constitutional safegaurd of our democracy. A lot of you also have an overly idealistic view of republicanism. In a republic you elect a president to safeguard your interests; your input into government stops there. After that, he can do pretty much what he likes so long as it is approved by the houses of representatives. The problem is many of you might be misunderstanding the role of a modern monarch, and perhaps may be a little biased by jealousy and a hint of the odd inferiority complex :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    This is such a biased and obviously scaremongering post. To call the alternative to the Monarchy 'Commmunism' is ridiculous. If you look at the G8, five of the eight nations are Republican, and are certainly not Communist. The three that are not are the United Kingdom, who are bound by the same imperialist laws as Canada, and Japan, who have their own Emperor. The rest of the countries have minimal or non-existent Communist factions, and therefore to suggest that the abolition of the monarchy would lead to any breakdown of our civilised society is plain wrong.


    This is the fundamental problem of the Monarchy in this country. She has huge powers over us, but we have no way of controlling her. Whereas the government of the day is chosen in order to fulfil the desires of the people democratically, her autocratic rulership of the British and Common wealth citizens is grossly unfair.

    Why should the British people put up with the Monarchy anymore? From divorces, suspicious deaths, Nazi affiliations, preferential treatment, cheating and wastage of the taxpayers money to subsidise this undemocratic, dictatorship-like grip on our submitting society, I would have thought that the British people would have removed these feeble excuse for leaders a long time ago.

    And don't get me started on their religious affiliation.
    The Queen does not rule autocratically. Britain is a constitutional monarchy and has been one since 1690. She cannot do whatever she wants, once again, the act of settlement and the bill of rights as wella s the Magna Carta ensure this. Since 1066, British Kings have always had to sign a contract witht he people that they would obey and respect common law. Thise who did not were exiled or had their heads cut off. You people are choosing to forget the immense advantage that an apolitical head of state affords us. Queen Elizabeth II IS NOT a feeble leader! She is a conscientious and dedicated monarch and takes her job a lot more seriously than many previous monarchs have. By the way, once again ir emind, the royal family is NOT the same thing as The Monarchy. Criticism of the Royal Family therefore should not extend to criticism of the Institution of Monarchy any more than Tony Blair's supposed arrogance should indict the position of "Prime Minister". And if you assume that you "vote" for our prime minister you may want to take a look at our electoral system. With 33% of the vote, it hardly seems a majority vote that put him in power. Even in the 1997 election, Labour got roughly 43% of the vote. So, maybe you should complaim about our "unelected" Prime Minister.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    By the way, the last time a Monarch refused Royal Assent was I think in 1701 and the Queen was Queen Anne. That prerogative is one of those things that does ensure a safety mechanism to safeguard our freedoms.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chiron)
    Every democracy has a head of state, ours just happens to be unelected.
    The monarch in the United Kingdom has been unelected every since the creation of England, and your post implies that you think it should stay that way. We are no longer in a country with an indigenous, ruling white population, but a diverse, multicultural modern society that can survive without this Head of State. She may 'happen' to be unelected at the minute, but that doesn't mean that it's right for her to be unelected

    (Original post by Chiron)
    Actually technically that isn't true. Many people assume the monarchy is hereditary by law when in fact every new monarch is acclaimed by parliament.
    I don't think that that statement is actually true. From wikipedia
    "Upon the death of a Sovereign, his or her heir immediately and automatically succeeds, without any need for confirmation or further ceremony."

    (Original post by Chiron)
    The idea of hereditary priveledge is not at odds with a meritocracy
    Umm... yes it is. A meritocracy, again according to wikipedia , is
    "a system of government based on rule by ability (merit) rather than by wealth or social position."
    How is hereditary gain of a title without any consideration for suitability, rule by merit or ability?

    (Original post by Chiron)
    The problem is many of you might be misunderstanding the role of a modern monarch, and perhaps may be a little biased by jealousy and a hint of the odd inferiority complex :rolleyes:
    Patronising people isn't a good way to develop a strong argument. It is neither "jealousy" nor "inferiority" that spurs on Republicans, but a united goal to achieve the most democratic outcome.

    I cannot believe that, following the collapse of the British Empire, the declaration of independence by almost every former colony, and the establishment of their respective democracies, Monarchists are still taking the "holier-than-thou" attitude that things should stay 'as they are'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chiron)
    The Queen does not rule autocratically.
    I never said that the Queen ruled autocratically, but that her unchallengeable control of the Head of State position and her family's automatic inheritance of that title displayed elements of an undemocratic and dictator-like style of ruling

    (Original post by Chiron)
    You people are choosing to forget the immense advantage that an apolitical head of state affords us.
    Like what, exactly?

    (Original post by Chiron)
    Queen Elizabeth II IS NOT a feeble leader!
    To me, Queen Elizabeth II is no better than Robert Mugabe. She, and her family, are desperate to maintain their ruling power, as Mugabe is, and refuse to give the British people the option to remove her, as Mugabe does. Typing in capitals doesn't make your argument any stronger, by the way.

    (Original post by Chiron)
    She is a conscientious and dedicated monarch and takes her job a lot more seriously than many previous monarchs have.
    That's an insufficient reason to keep her - Robert Mugabe takes his job seriously, and so did Saddam Hussein. Hmm...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Golden Maverik said:
    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.
    The issue is not about how much power the King/Queen has. The issue is whether one single family should be born into such privilege unseen almost anywhere else in the developed world. Whether one family should be viewed as 'superior'.

    Golden Maverik said:
    Do you not read any of my posts? What a load of bollocs
    The Royal family offically spend £8 million pounds of taxpayers money last year. Hardworking people's money spent on a bunch of already excessively rich idiots.

    Golden Maverik said:
    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.
    It was a terrrible mistake which in my view has stained his reputation. Many British people lost their lives fighting in WWII. Prince Harry is a first-class idiot who achieved the worst grades at Eton. Same goes for Prince Phillip with his racist remarks. The Royal family have donated very little money to charity and the money it has donated is the taxpayers money anyway.

    Golden Maverik said:
    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.
    I bet you still believe that the Queen has a 'direct link' to God. The Queen should have no say in who is appointed to churches. She dosen't have a clue about the average British citizen.

    Golden Maverik said:
    They are effectively powerless.
    The key word here is 'effectively'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    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.
    To add to MMA's rebuttal to this argument, I should ask Golden Maverick: why should a Monarch
    a) be Head of a Church in a country where its practical membership is low,
    b) be Head of a Church in a country where a majority of the British people are from other religions (Catholicism, Islam, Sikhism etc.), and
    c) be simultaneously a Head of State and a Head of a Church?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The royals do actually contribute to London's tourism trips and do generate loads of money which they then spend on helipcopter rides around the country to golf courses!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    The monarch in the United Kingdom has been unelected every since the creation of England, and your post implies that you think it should stay that way. We are no longer in a country with an indigenous, ruling white population, but a diverse, multicultural modern society that can survive without this Head of State. She may 'happen' to be unelected at the minute, but that doesn't mean that it's right for her to be unelected


    I don't think that that statement is actually true. From wikipedia
    "Upon the death of a Sovereign, his or her heir immediately and automatically succeeds, without any need for confirmation or further ceremony."


    Umm... yes it is. A meritocracy, again according to wikipedia , is
    "a system of government based on rule by ability (merit) rather than by wealth or social position."
    How is hereditary gain of a title without any consideration for suitability, rule by merit or ability?


    Patronising people isn't a good way to develop a strong argument. It is neither "jealousy" nor "inferiority" that spurs on Republicans, but a united goal to achieve the most democratic outcome.

    I cannot believe that, following the collapse of the British Empire, the declaration of independence by almost every former colony, and the establishment of their respective democracies, Monarchists are still taking the "holier-than-thou" attitude that things should stay 'as they are'.
    That is why the monarch doesn't rule. You people make it sound like she pushes dictatorial laws in parliament against the people's wishes. If we need a monarchy to reflect our population's diversity, then perhaps we should have a Prime Minister who does so too? I am not sure how multiculturalism comes into this. But if you insist: The Queen has English, Scottish, Welsh, German and Moorish blood. How's that for multicultral? Our prime minister is a scotsman pretending to be an english man. Should we get a more mutlicultural PM? By the way my last comment was not patronising, it was said in jest. I must ask however, why are you people so concinced of the merits of democracy? When was the last time you decided what laws are passed in parliament? Even mass protest could not prevent the government by delcaring an unpopular war on a foreign state.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I never said that the Queen ruled autocratically, but that her unchallengeable control of the Head of State position and her family's automatic inheritance of that title displayed elements of an undemocratic and dictator-like style of ruling
    Erm, the queen doesn't "rule". I highlighted the role of an apolitical head of state in one of my earlier posts, you can check it out at your convenience.


    To me, Queen Elizabeth II is no better than Robert Mugabe. She, and her family, are desperate to maintain their ruling power, as Mugabe is, and refuse to give the British people the option to remove her, as Mugabe does. Typing in capitals doesn't make your argument any stronger, by the way.
    The Queen is not "desparate to maintain her power". By what act of parilament or war did she prevent the british people from removing her? Mugabe rules directly, the Queen doesn't. See the difference? Typing in capitals is something I sometimes do for emphasis not out of agrression/

    That's an insufficient reason to keep her - Robert Mugabe takes his job serously, and so did Saddam Hussein. Hmm...
    That was an answer to your assertion that she is "feeble", and was nothing to do with the wider argument. My statement was simply a response to yours
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Chiron said:
    Our prime minister is a scotsman pretending to be an english man.
    Rubbish. Blair has an English parent and spent most of his formative years in England.
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

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

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.