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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kolya)
    does it? ...why couldn't it be equally true that the monarchy would advance the threat of totalitarian rule if it defended their interests? in the past, there have been cases where a country slipped into totalitarian rule while having a monarch - think japan or thailand or italy. if, as is likely, we have a stupid or greedy monarch sometime in the future, why isn't a case of a monarch letting (or even supporting) a dictatorial regime take power in the UK a possible scenario in your considerations? ...beyond your wishful thinking, i don't see any reason to think that a monarch is more likely to oppose a dictatorial regime than they are to support it.
    What?! Because the monarch's power begins and ends at the ability to give royal assent. If the monarch were ever to exercise this power in anything but the most extreme circumstances, a constitutional crisis would ensue that would - more than likely - see the end of the monarchy in the United Kingdom.

    There is no scope for the monarch to reclaim power from parliament, since she has no authority to repeal laws whatsoever.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Now, I would agree if there was a position like some monarchists describe, one that regulates the state, keeps it fair etc.

    But when that position is extended and actually means that they are better than me, then it gets silly. When they have special rights or privileges which elevate them above the common man simply because they've been born, that's when it gets silly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    But when that position is extended and actually means that they are better than me, then it gets silly. When they have special rights or privileges which elevate them above the common man simply because they've been born, that's when it gets silly.
    Why? They almost certainly "are" better than you. Why this rabid idealistic illusionary search of "equality" at all cost?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Why? They almost certainly "are" better than you. Why this rabid idealistic illusionary search of "equality" at all cost?
    What?

    Why are they better than me (or any other person)?

    Edit: And the search for """"""EQUALITY"""""" is because I think a society where people have a base of equality is a good one.
    Offline

    13
    I think they should be phased out slowly, or more reasonably, simply disconnected from the state. A democractic and meritocratic society shouldn't be 'headed' by such an obvious and anachronistic symbol of power through privilege and birth. At the very least they should be scaled down.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    What?

    Why are they better than me (or any other person)?

    Edit: And the search for """"""EQUALITY"""""" is because I think a society where people have a base of equality is a good one.
    Why would consider you 'equality' a good thing to build society off? Equality isn't inherently a good thing.

    And the reason that a monarch is likely to be better than you is there aristocratic upbringing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Why would consider 'equality' a good thing to build society off? Equality isn't inherently a good thing.
    It's what equality brings that makes society good.


    And the reason that a monarch is likely to be better than you is there aristocratic upbringing.
    Care to elucidate?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moosehead)
    The monarchy is an archaic institution whose members enjoy respect and influence purely by accident of birth.

    Why, in a 21st century 'democracy', do we continue to allow this blatant abuse of our civil liberties? We still have a non-elected House of Lords for crying out loud! We should be out on the streets in our droves, protesting at this continuing injustice. Yet, unfortunately, we sit in our homes playing our Xbox's and Nintendo's.

    True, we need an institution to regulate the activity of the establishment and, if the worst comes to the worst, to step in and take control; but surely we can find a better way than an outdated, parasitic royalty.

    Any suggestions?
    I feel the HoL has done more to protect our civil liberties than the HoC...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    It's what equality brings that makes society good.
    What's that then?

    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    Care to elucidate?
    They have had a very good and educational upbringing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They have had a very good and educational upbringing.
    I've had a good upbringing and a not-too-shabby education. Also if education made people better than others, perhaps we should offer Stephen Hawking the throne? Or any other person more intelligent than the royals?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    I've had a good upbringing and a not-too-shabby education. Also if education made people better than others, perhaps we should offer Stephen Hawking the throne? Or any other person more intelligent than the royals?
    I was saying that they were more likely to be intelligent than yourself.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    My view of the Monarchy is that
    1. First and foremost it would be wrong at this present time to undergo a "revolution." Revolutions usually end in disaster.
    2. The Monarchy should in the future, when -- or IF -- it has been fully disconnected by our society because of falling rates of belief in religion & general disadherence to general social rules about hierarchies -- lose its power.
    3. However, they should still keep all their titles, estates, money, etc.
    4. A system of Government that has taken in excess of one thousand years to develop and which is still developing ought to be allowed to continue upon it's natural line and is a system superior to the rapid reorganisation of government upon abstract political principles.
    Offline

    10
    As it stands the Queen and House of Lords is the only thing in the way of an extremist minority government.

    But this is mostly because most governments in the UK only ~40% of the vote to form a government anyway.

    Codified constitution + proportional representation :yes:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moosehead)
    The monarchy is an archaic institution whose members enjoy respect and influence purely by accident of birth.
    No, they enjoy it because of the office they are in, regardless of how they got there. A

    Why, in a 21st century 'democracy', do we continue to allow this blatant abuse of our civil liberties? We still have a non-elected House of Lords for crying out loud! We should be out on the streets in our droves, protesting at this continuing injustice. Yet, unfortunately, we sit in our homes playing our Xbox's and Nintendo's.
    Because most of us are quite happy with it. We are a democracy, that does not mean everything the government does must be dominated by the public - that's simply mob rule. Democracy is quite properly moderated by other influences.

    an outdated, parasitic royalty.
    Appealing to novelty is a logical fallacy, you do realise.

    Plus 'parasitic' - **** you. The Queen works a full time job, despite being in her 80s, for no salary whatsoever - not because she wants to, but because she sees it as her duty to the country.

    The world would be a better place without the likes of you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    My view of the Monarchy is that
    1. First and foremost it would be wrong at this present time to undergo a "revolution." Revolutions usually end in disaster.
    2. The Monarchy should in the future, when -- or IF -- it has been fully disconnected by our society because of falling rates of belief in religion & general disadherence to general social rules about hierarchies -- lose its power.
    3. However, they should still keep all their titles, estates, money, etc.
    4. A system of Government that has taken in excess of one thousand years to develop and which is still developing ought to be allowed to continue upon it's natural line and is a system superior to the rapid reorganisation of government upon abstract political principles.
    :yes: A very Burkean reply.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Donnahh)
    And what "role" does the Monarchy actually, actively play in Politics? The Queen gives her assent to a Bill she hasn't even read?
    Royal Assent is a relatively dull issue despite the importance of it - although to suggest she does not real the Bill going through parliament is silly; of course she does.

    The Queen's main role is as head of the executive. She maintains a complete oversight over the work of the government, and meets very regularly with the Prime Minister and other Ministers to discuss the political issues of the day. Within the Government, the Queen has three 'rights' as a constitutional monarch: to be consulted, to advise and to warn.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    I was saying that they were more likely to be intelligent than yourself.
    I've got the same amount of A Levels as Prince Harry and William combined. I can't believe you are seriously trying to argue that those related to the monarchy are "better" than us because they are more likely to be clever:confused: It's utter madness.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Another "egalitarian" moron who thinks that equality is preferable to good governance.
    Could you then explain to me how a monarchy gives us good governance? Could you also explain to me how the French system which is overtly based on the concept of equality is not in fact a sound governmental system?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Some seem to overlook some of the other advantages of a monarchy.

    For a start, an outwardly apolitical head of state is a good figurehead rather than a party politician, especially when politics in this country is so tribal.

    And then there's the advantage in diplomacy; since nine-tenths of it is making others believe you value them, sending the head of state is one of the biggest and best ways to diplomatically court a country. The more famous the head of state, the bigger the publicity value. A monarch, by virtue of the long reign of decades, is going to be a much bigger figure on the world stage than a five-year-termed president. Typically, the effect of a royal visit is so much more than that of a (ceremonial) presidential visit.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaoPaolo90)
    Could you then explain to me how a monarchy gives us good governance? Could you also explain to me how the French system which is overtly based on the concept of equality is not in fact a sound governmental system?
    The Reign of Terror

    There is no good reason to change the current system.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • 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.