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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LawBore)
    Right, ok. But the monarchy still claimed to be appointed by God, The 'divine right of kings', I believe it was called. This now isn't the case, and we have shifted to constitutional monarchy as opposed to absolute monarchy ("OFF WITH HIS HEAD!").
    The Divine Right was always a continental concept rather than a British one and only really caught on after Henry VIII and the Stewarts. It was never taken particularly seriously here. Nor has absolute monarchy ever held sway in England at least. Scotland, despite having a more 'elective' style monarchy at first certainly dabbled in it - it was one of the reasons England did not become part of Great Britain in 1603 when James VI ascended to the throne: they feared for their ancient liberties.

    Any thought of it died in 1688 with the Glorious Revolution.

    As such, I find it hard to accept the principles under which the monarchy was established
    I think you'll find the very roots of monarchy are essentially a matter of pragmatism. The aristocracy were never going to simply hand absolute authority to one of their number: even they saw the inherent problems in that.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    That is, by very definition, what it is.



    No they don't. No country has a 'fully' democratic system. Indeed, those who have entirely elected legislatures tend to have entrenched constitutions - unlike Britain - for this very reason.



    Oh , so it's an inconsistent and arbitrary dictatorship? How wonderful. I think I'd prefer the run-of-the-mill dictator myself - at least they tend to know how to do pomp.



    Well, at least we agree on one point.
    It is not by definition what it is - it's giving people the right to choose the government for themselves. And that's not mob rule as there is no mob mentality - the mentality here is one of wanting to be able to choose how one's country is governed.

    Okay, it may not be possible to have a fully democratic country, but even so, a Monarchy is a highly undemocratic principle. Giving people power, influence and veneration based on their birth is wrong in my opinion and should not be part of any governmental system that claims to be democratic. I also find that the role of the Monarchy in this country can be detrimental to certain groups. Would I be wrong in saying that it was the decision of the Monarchy to prevent any Catholic from being Prime Minister? If so, it's an example of persecution that should have no place in society. That's why I find that the Monarchy is outdated as an archaic fear of a Catholic counter-revolution still holds a place in today's government.

    And I didn't mean to say that it was arbitrary and inconsistent. When I said that it was dynamic, I was more trying to say that the public opinion is more open to change than a dictator with a one track mind. It's better to have the balance of power in the majority than the minority, in my opinion. And as for pomp, that is no basis on which to favour a governmental system.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Dumbledore Mk II)
    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.
    you misunderstood me. i was not suggesting that the monarch become the dictator...i was saying that the monarch could permit and even support a dictatorial regime to rise and overthrow the house of commons. military junta and monarchs can coexist. is not conceivable that a future monarch, one who is stupid and greedy, will not defend our democracy in a crisis, but will show support for those who wish to overthrow the democracy? i'm not going as far to say it is more likely -- i am just saying that it is a scenario that should not be ignored in your considerations, as is currently the case.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    He isn't, and I don't think you've really addressed the point I made.
    I am. SaoPaolo90 interpreted my post very accurately.

    Do you not think it is odd that those posting on this thread who are pro-monarchy are frequently resorting to petty insults and mindless repetition, while those that are anti-monarchy (on the whole) tend to be offering their input in a fair and calm fashion?

    Methinks they doth protest too much.

    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Why? They almost certainly "are" better than you.
    Nothing anybody could say here would possibly make you look worse than you have already done yourself by saying this.

    Out of interest, since when were these forums exclusively yours? When last I looked, they were public i.e. open to all. The whole fun of it is that we share our ideas - not ram them down other peoples' throats. Perhaps you'd be more suited to speaking at a BNP rally...

    I really don't understand the argument that we should keep the Monarchy simply because they have been around for a long time. It was once believed that smoking was good for you, until we discovered that it gives you cancer. People still smoke, though, and simply put the thought of death out of their heads, in an act of either conscious suppression, or subconscious repression.

    For how much longer are you willing to deny the failings of our system, continuing to smoke the royal pipe, whilst the regal tumour festers in your body?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moosehead)
    Do you not think it is odd that those posting on this thread who are pro-monarchy are frequently resorting to petty insults and mindless repetition, while those that are anti-monarchy (on the whole) tend to be offering their input in a fair and calm fashion?

    Methinks they doth protest too much.

    Out of interest, since when were these forums exclusively yours? When last I looked, they were public i.e. open to all. The whole fun of it is that we share our ideas - not ram them down other peoples' throats. Perhaps you'd be more suited to speaking at a BNP rally...
    I think you've just failed as a troll.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I think you've just failed as a troll.
    The only part of that post that I felt was objectionable was the BNP part, but even then you do tend to put your opinions across in a similar fashion to them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaoPaolo90)
    It is not by definition what it is - it's giving people the right to choose the government for themselves. And that's not mob rule as there is no mob mentality - the mentality here is one of wanting to be able to choose how one's country is governed.
    Choosing the government is perfectly fine - we do that already - an absolute control over how the country is government is what pushes things into mob rule territory. A lack of 'mob mentality' isn't really the matter at hand - the people can and often do turn that way - it is the ability for 'the people' to rule as absolutists on a whim.

    Okay, it may not be possible to have a fully democratic country, but even so, a Monarchy is a highly undemocratic principle.
    Only if you use 'undemocratic' to mean lacking democracy rather than, as you seem to be implying, somehow anti-democratic.

    Giving people power, influence and veneration based on their birth is wrong in my opinion
    Yet giving them power and influence based on their popularity is morally justified?

    Would I be wrong in saying that it was the decision of the Monarchy to prevent any Catholic from being Prime Minister? If so, it's an example of persecution that should have no place in society. That's why I find that the Monarchy is outdated as an archaic fear of a Catholic counter-revolution still holds a place in today's government.
    There has never been any bar on a Roman Catholic becoming Prime Minister. There is a bar on a Roman Catholic being the monarch - which was only brought about by Parliament overthrowing the monarch in the Glorious Revolution and inviting another in his place, despite it leading to over half a century of bloody conflict.

    And I didn't mean to say that it was arbitrary and inconsistent. When I said that it was dynamic, I was more trying to say that the public opinion is more open to change than a dictator with a one track mind. .
    That sounds quite inconsistent to me - and indeed, I'll take that as my point. An absolute dictatorship of the public would be worse than a dictatorship by a standard dictator - the public certainly are arbitrary and contradictory in their whims.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaoPaolo90)
    The only part of that post that I felt was objectionable was the BNP part, but even then you do tend to put your opinions across in a similar fashion to them.
    No I don't. If you think that's curt, then take heart that I am at least going some way to entertaining even your more ludicrous suggestions. I certainly wouldn't do the same for the other fellow.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    No I don't. If you think that's curt, then take heart that I am at least going some way to entertaining even your more ludicrous suggestions. I certainly wouldn't do the same for the other fellow.
    Well at times you militantly defend your views and you make personal attacks on people when such offensives are not merited/necessary. It was a clumsy way to express that, I accept, but still, I feel it's a valid point.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Choosing the government is perfectly fine - we do that already - an absolute control over how the country is government is what pushes things into mob rule territory. A lack of 'mob mentality' isn't really the matter at hand - the people can and often do turn that way - it is the ability for 'the people' to rule as absolutists on a whim.



    Only if you use 'undemocratic' to mean lacking democracy rather than, as you seem to be implying, somehow anti-democratic.



    Yet giving them power and influence based on their popularity is morally justified?



    There has never been any bar on a Roman Catholic becoming Prime Minister. There is a bar on a Roman Catholic being the monarch - which was only brought about by Parliament overthrowing the monarch in the Glorious Revolution and inviting another in his place, despite it leading to over half a century of bloody conflict.



    That sounds quite inconsistent to me - and indeed, I'll take that as my point. An absolute dictatorship of the public would be worse than a dictatorship by a standard dictator - the public certainly are arbitrary and contradictory in their whims.
    I'm surprised that you seem to think for some strange reason that I'm asking for a dictatorship by the people. I think it's a simple and fair point to make that the people should be able to choose how they are governed. If we are to be represented in the government, I believe it's our right to choose our own representatives. There is nothing to do with a mob mentality in my idea. I fail to see what disadvantages said "mob law" would have that a system based on a monarchy would not. I feel it's a moral question based on our equality that we should be allowed to choose our own government. I'm not asking for a Marxist revolution, merely a step in the direction of many of the other major countries who happily manage without a monarch.

    And I do believe that it is lacking in democracy to have a Monarch, as this Monarch is not chosen by the people to have influence over us. I do also feel, however, that this is anti-democratic, or at least counterintuitive to the idea of democracy. The system just seems inconsistent and I feel that the monarchy plays an expendable part in our governance.

    And yes, giving them power based on who the people wish to have the power is justified. We should be able to choose who we want to represent us - that's my main point. Trivialised, this means that they are chosen "based on their popularity", but this merely is a euphemism for "what the people want", which, in my opinion, is the most justifiable system of government.

    And as for the Prime Minister point, I was absolutely convinced that it was the case that it was a position closed to Catholics. Apparently, as you said, there is no constitutional block on a Catholic becoming Prime Minister, so I stand corrected. However, the discrimination within the Royal Family is something that can make many people feel distanced from them. I myself am a Catholic and perhaps this has some basis in my republican ideals, and I find it difficult to support an institution with such elitist/discriminatory ideals. But this is a minor point in any case.

    I personally don't believe that there ever could be such thing as an absolute dictatorship of the public. I don't think for a second that the public being able to choose all of their own representatives equates to a public dictatorship. The government would still be making the decisions, just with more public backing. What I meant to say before was that a "public dictatorship" would be preferable to an autocracy because the public would be able to react to the current situation according to need - different situations require different solutions, and I feel the public are more likely to try and exact necessary changes than an autocrat whose position would be practically secure no matter what. However, we digress far too much.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    No they don’t, Windsor PLC are out and about the country everyday or entertaining people at the palace, then at night the Queen goes through her official papers sent from the government. And the only time she wears her crown is the coronation and the state opening of parliament.
    Hard life "entertaining" people and wearing a crown couple of times...I don't think I'd exactly miss them if they all decided to bugger off far far away
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Kill em all!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If they offer a valuable job in regulating governments, they can still do that job without having to live in palaces, or riding around in golden carriages.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by x-Disenchanted-x)
    Hard life "entertaining" people and wearing a crown couple of times...I don't think I'd exactly miss them if they all decided to bugger off far far away
    That is hardly a basis to getting rid of them, if the entire cabinet decided to bugger off it wouldn’t have an impact on us plebs in any way shape or form but that doesn’t mean there not important.

    Nobody in this country really has a hard time, but to think the Queen just sits about all day doing sweet FA while sitting on her pile of gold is very far from the truth.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Oh dear. I think I may be about to get hanged for treason
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaoPaolo90)
    I'm surprised that you seem to think for some strange reason that I'm asking for a dictatorship by the people. I think it's a simple and fair point to make that the people should be able to choose how they are governed. If we are to be represented in the government, I believe it's our right to choose our own representatives.
    That's probably not what you want, I'll happily admit. However you make arguments where that is the only logical conclusion and deploy the rhetoric of someone with those views. As such, rather than take you as self-contradictory, I shall argue against what you present as your views. I have no time to be examining what you think you mean.

    To suggest that 'the people should be able to choose how they are governed' is absolutist.

    There is nothing to do with a mob mentality in my idea. I fail to see what disadvantages said "mob law" would have that a system based on a monarchy would not.
    Because it is an arbitrary dictatorship. If you can't see how that is dangerous then I suggest you have a gander at the history section of your local library.

    I do also feel, however, that this is anti-democratic, or at least counterintuitive to the idea of democracy. The system just seems inconsistent
    Here's the crux: the perversion of the theory. Democratic ideals were never intended to be absolute. To argue for them to be used 'consistently' is not only counter to traditional democratic theory, it also jettisons any of the good that democracy was intended to bring about as a check on power.

    To give any one thing absolute hold over a State is to abandon completely a system of checks and balances - and that is what democracy in this country was created for: to act as a balance.

    And yes, giving them power based on who the people wish to have the power is justified. We should be able to choose who we want to represent us - that's my main point. Trivialised, this means that they are chosen "based on their popularity", but this merely is a euphemism for "what the people want", which, in my opinion, is the most justifiable system of government.
    Personally I don't think it matters who does something, but rather what they choose to do. Whether it is one tyrant oppressing me or a million, it makes no difference. The most justifiable form of government is a moral one, and to me that means a liberal one.

    I personally don't believe that there ever could be such thing as an absolute dictatorship of the public. I don't think for a second that the public being able to choose all of their own representatives equates to a public dictatorship.
    Which is what they can do at present. However that's not what you were arguing - you argued for that absolute dictatorship; you argued for the people not only being able to choose representatives but mould the constitution in whatever way they saw fit.

    The government would still be making the decisions, just with more public backing. What I meant to say before was that a "public dictatorship" would be preferable to an autocracy because the public would be able to react to the current situation according to need - different situations require different solutions, and I feel the public are more likely to try and exact necessary changes than an autocrat whose position would be practically secure no matter what.
    ...and a liberal constitutional parliamentary monarchy is better than both. I am not, and never have, argued for autocracy.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    If they offer a valuable job in regulating governments, they can still do that job without having to live in palaces, or riding around in golden carriages.
    Those are two separate roles of the head of state. You're quite right, one does not require the other. Gold coaches and crowns are used for completely different reasons.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    That's probably not what you want, I'll happily admit. However you make arguments where that is the only logical conclusion and deploy the rhetoric of someone with those views. As such, rather than take you as self-contradictory, I shall argue against what you present as your views. I have no time to be examining what you think you mean.
    If it's probably not what I want, then don't claim that it is. It doesn't make for a very intellectual debate. I find the idea of a dictatorship led by the people to be totally paradoxical - if people are choosing for themselves how their own country is governed, then that is the very essence of a democracy; the opposite of a dictatorship. I find that this is a consistent point that isn't self-contradictory at all. And you have no time to be examining what "I think I mean"? Well I'm sorry that my political ideals are eating into your busy schedule!


    To suggest that 'the people should be able to choose how they are governed' is absolutist.
    Also democratic.

    Because it is an arbitrary dictatorship. If you can't see how that is dangerous then I suggest you have a gander at the history section of your local library.
    As I said before, a government voted for entirely by the people is not an arbitrary dictatorship. I fail to see how us having the right to vote for every representative is a means of dictatorship.


    Here's the crux: the perversion of the theory. Democratic ideals were never intended to be absolute. To argue for them to be used 'consistently' is not only counter to traditional democratic theory, it also jettisons any of the good that democracy was intended to bring about as a check on power.
    Again, I fail to see how being able to vote for all of those who represent us is counter to traditional democracy. Having someone born into such positions of power and influence through no democratic process is in itself counter to traditional democratic theory.

    To give any one thing absolute hold over a State is to abandon completely a system of checks and balances - and that is what democracy in this country was created for: to act as a balance.
    It was actually created so that people could have a say in how their country is run. But in this country it hasn't gone far enough if we're still being lorded over by non-elected, elitist "royals". Other countries have managed very well without a royal family, and I admire that. I don't see why we can't make the step forward into a fairer, less elitist system which is not based on wealth and influence but political skill and panache.

    Personally I don't think it matters who does something, but rather what they choose to do. Whether it is one tyrant oppressing me or a million, it makes no difference. The most justifiable form of government is a moral one, and to me that means a liberal one.
    It certainly does matter who does something. A non-elected monarch may do good things during their reign, but I do not believe for a second that this justifies our having a royal family at all, as it is not right to give someone such political power based on their birth or wealth. A moral government, as you correctly said, is the ideal, and I personally feel it is immoral to have a royal family based on the principles of basic human equality.

    Which is what they can do at present. However that's not what you were arguing - you argued for that absolute dictatorship; you argued for the people not only being able to choose representatives but mould the constitution in whatever way they saw fit.
    No they can't - we have a Monarch with influence over us on the throne who was not elected and we have a House of Lords that is not democratically elected either. And not once did I say that they should be able to change the constitution as they saw fit - I was merely using the idea of the right to vote for all of our representatives as a means by which to exact change. I'm not asking for the public to walk into the Commons and run amok, I'm merely stating that they should have more of a say in who governs us. That is all.

    ...and a liberal constitutional parliamentary monarchy is better than both. I am not, and never have, argued for autocracy.
    You obviously failed to see the inverted commas. I said "public dictatorship" in an ironic fashion as it is not a "public dictatorship" that I want. A Liberal, constitutional monarchy is not better than a democracy in which we can all vote for those who we wish to represent us - it is outdated and expendable. I'm aware of the fact that you weren't advocating an autocracy, but you did state before that it would be preferable to the political system that you thought I was advocating myself. The point is moot really considering that neither of us were actually arguing in favour of those systems.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaoPaolo90)
    If it's probably not what I want, then don't claim that it is.
    That was precisely the point I was making, but for you. I am not here to question whether you believe what you say or not.

    Also democratic.
    So? Democracy isn't an end in itself.

    As I said before, a government voted for entirely by the people is not an arbitrary dictatorship. I fail to see how us having the right to vote for every representative is a means of dictatorship.
    It is very arbitrary, and absolutist power concentrated in one body is dictatorship or, more properly, tyranny.

    Again, I fail to see how being able to vote for all of those who represent us is counter to traditional democracy. Having someone born into such positions of power and influence through no democratic process is in itself counter to traditional democratic theory.
    Because traditional democratic theory is not absolutist. You are. And it's ridiculous.

    It certainly does matter who does something. A non-elected monarch may do good things during their reign, but I do not believe for a second that this justifies our having a royal family at all, as it is not right to give someone such political power based on their birth or wealth. A moral government, as you correctly said, is the ideal, and I personally feel it is immoral to have a royal family based on the principles of basic human equality.
    I'm afraid I don't believe in your principle of basic human equality. The vast majority of people don't, as they do not share in your fairly extreme socialist views.

    And not once did I say that they should be able to change the constitution as they saw fit
    Yes you did - you said that 'the people' should be able to choose how they are governed without any qualification whatsoever.

    it is outdated and expendable
    Again, appeals to novelty are a logical fallacy, as are appeals to apparent necessity - everything is expendable unless you set out an end which you are working towards.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)

    They have had a very good and educational upbringing.

    This isn't Plato's Republic. You cannot justify the Royal Family's rule based only on their intelligence.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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.