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

The Queen watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you 'like' the queen?
    Yes
    58
    66.67%
    No
    29
    33.33%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I was just wondering how many people here like the queen? The media always insists that we as the young hoody generation hate the queen and the monarchy but I would like to just see peoples preference.

    Personally I think the Queen is brill, I mean shes like the grandma of a nation for christ sake. She is also incredibly beneficial for tourism!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yep, I like her cus well, she has been around all my life and it would be wierd without her.

    However she now serve's no actual purpose imo, however tourism wise like you said. £££££££
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What does The Queen do for our country, exactly??
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well she basically sits around and very occasionally has to sign a few pieces of paper to allow a new law to be passed. I think she also has to be asked if the UK can go to war or not.

    P.s dont quote me on this, I am not sure but this has always been my understanding of it
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    She overseas state and i know she has duties but to be perfectly honest i just don't know what half of them are.

    In theory she does have the power of veto when it comes to passing laws tho.

    Personally i like the Royal Family. Most people who say they don't like her can't form a reasonable argument as to why they don't.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't like or dislike the queen. I guess I'm indifferent. I guess I don't see the point or purpose in the monarchy. But hey, I'm not questioning it, I'm not questioning it because I don't expect any answers. I'm wouldn't put the monarchy down either, the system has been around a lot longer than I have and will be around long after I go.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    long live the queen! the fascist regime!!! haha
    Offline

    1
    I love Queen and I hate the Queen.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    as a person, her works are pretty good, and has her worth


    but as a royal family i don't agree to that
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You can certainly dislike the monarchy as an institution, but the fact that people apparently (according to the poll) actively dislike a pleasant, well-mannered elderly woman, who has given up any shred of a normal life out of a sense of duty to her country proves how cold, ignorant and vicious young people can be.

    And those who feel indifference should simply not have voted, as not liking someone certainly implies a dislike, although the poll is vague in this sense.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I love having a royal family but I think scotland should get their own :P
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I like her and I like what she stands for in terms of English history and our whole image etc etc
    Plus she was nice and cute when I met her haha
    Offline

    15
    I don't like the Monarchy but I have no qualms with the Queen herself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    She's a nice lady.

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am against the Monarchy, however I think it's wrong to criticize the Queen herself. There is the typical, albeit relevant, socialist argument as to why we should abolish the Monarchy, however the main problem with having a Monarchy is that it is huge threat to democracy, a threat that many people are not even aware of.
    Below is an article by Tony Benn from 2003, clearly explaining why having a constitutional Monarchy is such a problem, and how it's existence corrupts our society.

    "To Save the Monarchy...

    On Friday December 11 1936, when I was 11 years old, my parents allowed me to stay up late to hear the broadcast by King Edward VIII, who had just abdicated and was introduced as His Royal Highness Prince Edward of Windsor. I remember it very well.
    It provided an important insight into our constitution, revealing that although the establishment was always swearing its undying loyalty to the king - as recently as January of that year every privy councillor and MP had sworn their allegiance to him when he succeeded to the throne - they were quite prepared to sacrifice him to save the monarchy. We should keep that fact in mind as rumours about Prince Charles fill the media, for the same issue could arise again.

    I am not interested in the rumours themselves, which are of no concern to anyone other than those involved, the palace and the high court, which tried to prevent us from hearing them. Similar attempts were made in 1936 when the American press was full of stories about Mrs Simpson, none of which reached readers in Britain until the Bishop of Bradford preached a mild sermon about the duties of the king.

    Stanley Baldwin very soon realised that the empire would not accept Mrs Simpson as queen, and forced the king to sign the instrument of abdication as the necessary pre-condition for the continuation of the crown itself. This was seen as essential to those who make up the establishment because it performs many functions that are held - by them - to be central to the maintenance of their own power and influence.

    The royal prerogative, exercised not by the Queen but by the prime minister in her name, is seen as the final guarantee that democratic decisions by parliament and the people could never be allowed to undermine the hierarchical and semi-feudal system we have. The fount of honour has been re-routed from Buckingham Palace and now sprays the holy water of patronage on the chosen few from 10 Downing Street, which appoints archbishops, bishops, cabinet ministers, peers and judges, and fills most senior government posts with the people it wants.

    Declarations of war and Britain's adherence to treaties such as the new European constitution are exercised under prerogative powers by the prime minister, who may or may not choose to consult the Commons or the electorate in a referendum.

    Government policy is revealed in the Queen's speech, which she does not write herself; all laws to be enacted require the royal assent; parliaments are all summoned and dissolved by royal proclamation; and the Commons even requires the consent of the Queen before it can elect a speaker, because we have a monarchy.

    MPs have to swear allegiance to the Queen before they can take their seats, while those joining the privy council - a requirement for all cabinet ministers - have to do so in person, on bended knee, before the Queen herself.

    As an MP, my true allegiance was to my party, my constituents and, above all, my conscience. Therefore, in order to serve in the Commons and the cabinet, I had to tell 18 lies under oath, which I found deeply offensive.

    Above all, the existence of a hereditary monarchy helps to prop up all the privilege and patronage that corrupts our society; that is why the crown is seen as being of such importance to those who run the country - or enjoy the privileges it affords.

    Years ago, when I was trying to get out of the House of Lords, I was warned that such a move would undermine the monarchy, whereas it was obvious that the monarchy was using the then hereditary House of Lords to prop itself up because it did not want to be alone in justifying its power by inheritance.

    The case for electing our head of state and claiming our right to be citizens rather than subjects is unanswerable; the royal family could stay at Buckingham Palace, financing the changing of the guard by a grant from the tourist board, free to live the lives they want.

    Such a change would transform the culture of Britain and radicalise the people by getting us off our knees - which would really frighten those at the top. They cling to the monarchy and would be ready, as in 1936, to ditch the king himself, or in this case the heir to the throne, leaving Prince Charles, unlike his predecessor in 1649, with his head but not his crown.

    But such a solution would leave the rest of us no further forward in our search for democracy, saddled with a new, younger and more marketable king but one still replete with all the powers he would possess, which is exactly what the establishment would like to see, despite all we hear about modernisation."

    Any thoughts on this?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SebCarroll)
    I am against the Monarchy, however I think it's wrong to criticize the Queen herself. There is the typical, albeit relevant, socialist argument as to why we should abolish the Monarchy, however the main problem with having a Monarchy is that it is huge threat to democracy, a threat that many people are not even aware of.
    Below is an article by Tony Benn from 2003, clearly explaining why having a constitutional Monarchy is such a problem, and how it's existence corrupts our society.

    "To Save the Monarchy...

    On Friday December 11 1936, when I was 11 years old, my parents allowed me to stay up late to hear the broadcast by King Edward VIII, who had just abdicated and was introduced as His Royal Highness Prince Edward of Windsor. I remember it very well.
    It provided an important insight into our constitution, revealing that although the establishment was always swearing its undying loyalty to the king - as recently as January of that year every privy councillor and MP had sworn their allegiance to him when he succeeded to the throne - they were quite prepared to sacrifice him to save the monarchy. We should keep that fact in mind as rumours about Prince Charles fill the media, for the same issue could arise again.

    I am not interested in the rumours themselves, which are of no concern to anyone other than those involved, the palace and the high court, which tried to prevent us from hearing them. Similar attempts were made in 1936 when the American press was full of stories about Mrs Simpson, none of which reached readers in Britain until the Bishop of Bradford preached a mild sermon about the duties of the king.

    Stanley Baldwin very soon realised that the empire would not accept Mrs Simpson as queen, and forced the king to sign the instrument of abdication as the necessary pre-condition for the continuation of the crown itself. This was seen as essential to those who make up the establishment because it performs many functions that are held - by them - to be central to the maintenance of their own power and influence.

    The royal prerogative, exercised not by the Queen but by the prime minister in her name, is seen as the final guarantee that democratic decisions by parliament and the people could never be allowed to undermine the hierarchical and semi-feudal system we have. The fount of honour has been re-routed from Buckingham Palace and now sprays the holy water of patronage on the chosen few from 10 Downing Street, which appoints archbishops, bishops, cabinet ministers, peers and judges, and fills most senior government posts with the people it wants.

    Declarations of war and Britain's adherence to treaties such as the new European constitution are exercised under prerogative powers by the prime minister, who may or may not choose to consult the Commons or the electorate in a referendum.

    Government policy is revealed in the Queen's speech, which she does not write herself; all laws to be enacted require the royal assent; parliaments are all summoned and dissolved by royal proclamation; and the Commons even requires the consent of the Queen before it can elect a speaker, because we have a monarchy.

    MPs have to swear allegiance to the Queen before they can take their seats, while those joining the privy council - a requirement for all cabinet ministers - have to do so in person, on bended knee, before the Queen herself.

    As an MP, my true allegiance was to my party, my constituents and, above all, my conscience. Therefore, in order to serve in the Commons and the cabinet, I had to tell 18 lies under oath, which I found deeply offensive.

    Above all, the existence of a hereditary monarchy helps to prop up all the privilege and patronage that corrupts our society; that is why the crown is seen as being of such importance to those who run the country - or enjoy the privileges it affords.

    Years ago, when I was trying to get out of the House of Lords, I was warned that such a move would undermine the monarchy, whereas it was obvious that the monarchy was using the then hereditary House of Lords to prop itself up because it did not want to be alone in justifying its power by inheritance.

    The case for electing our head of state and claiming our right to be citizens rather than subjects is unanswerable; the royal family could stay at Buckingham Palace, financing the changing of the guard by a grant from the tourist board, free to live the lives they want.

    Such a change would transform the culture of Britain and radicalise the people by getting us off our knees - which would really frighten those at the top. They cling to the monarchy and would be ready, as in 1936, to ditch the king himself, or in this case the heir to the throne, leaving Prince Charles, unlike his predecessor in 1649, with his head but not his crown.

    But such a solution would leave the rest of us no further forward in our search for democracy, saddled with a new, younger and more marketable king but one still replete with all the powers he would possess, which is exactly what the establishment would like to see, despite all we hear about modernisation."

    Any thoughts on this?
    This isn't a monarchy debate. It's a pointless thread on whether people like an elderly woman or not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by daftndirekt)
    Well she basically sits around and very occasionally has to sign a few pieces of paper to allow a new law to be passed. I think she also has to be asked if the UK can go to war or not.

    P.s dont quote me on this, I am not sure but this has always been my understanding of it
    She doesn't actually give her royal assent to pass the laws anymore, her aides do it for her. It's just a tradition now really as no laws have been opposed for about 400 years or so I think. Also the power to declare war and peace is now known as a 'royal prerogative' power as in theory the queen still has the power but it is exercised by the PM.

    Most of the things the monarchy used to have the power to do have now been passed to the PM and Parliament in general so the only things she now actually does is all the royal visits and the occasions like the Trooping of the Colour and the opening of Parliament for each session.

    (By the way I'm not attacking what you said, I realise it looks a bit *****y! Just giving more info to what you said).

    -

    My opinion is that there is no need for the royal family anymore. It would be interesting to weigh up whether the money they bring into the country through tourism would outweigh the money they take from us through the privy purse, grants and the civil list. Also if they were got rid of we could just open the whole of Buckingham Palace up as a tourist attraction and charge a ridiculous amount of money to tourists wanting to see it (plus extra if they want to jump up and down on the queen's bed). The queen herself seems like a nice lady and she has dedicated her life to it (even though she had no choice) but I think they have no real reason for keeping the royal family- even though we'll never get rid of them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by haz220807)
    She doesn't actually give her royal assent to pass the laws anymore, her aides do it for her. It's just a tradition now really as no laws have been opposed for about 400 years or so I think. Also the power to declare war and peace is now known as a 'royal prerogative' power as in theory the queen still has the power but it is exercised by the PM.

    Most of the things the monarchy used to have the power to do have now been passed to the PM and Parliament in general so the only things she now actually does is all the royal visits and the occasions like the Trooping of the Colour and the opening of Parliament for each session.

    (By the way I'm not attacking what you said, I realise it looks a bit *****y! Just giving more info to what you said).

    -

    My opinion is that there is no need for the royal family anymore. It would be interesting to weigh up whether the money they bring into the country through tourism would outweigh the money they take from us through the privy purse, grants and the civil list. Also if they were got rid of we could just open the whole of Buckingham Palace up as a tourist attraction and charge a ridiculous amount of money to tourists wanting to see it (plus extra if they want to jump up and down on the queen's bed). The queen herself seems like a nice lady and she has dedicated her life to it (even though she had no choice) but I think they have no real reason for keeping the royal family- even though we'll never get rid of them.
    Very good point. Removing the official status of the Monarchy wouldn't neccesarily have to mean an end to the cultural / tourist side which our society seems so reliant on.
    Whether or not one likes the Queen herself is a personal opinion, but I think people should be more concerned with the fact that the royal perogative is exercised by the PM, more specifically, the fact that he is under no obligation to have a referendum or even a debate in the Commons over important issues such as taking the Country into war.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SebCarroll)
    Very good point. Removing the official status of the Monarchy wouldn't neccesarily have to mean an end to the cultural / tourist side which our society seems so reliant on.
    Whether or not one likes the Queen herself is a personal opinion, but I think people should be more concerned with the fact that the royal perogative is exercised by the PM, more specifically, the fact that he is under no obligation to have a referendum or even a debate in the Commons over important issues such as taking the Country into war.
    Yep. I think a lot of people don't realise the extent to which the Queen's powers have been transferred to the PM so they still think she's there signing bits of paper to pass laws through and taking us to war etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by daftndirekt)
    I was just wondering how many people here like the queen? The media always insists that we as the young hoody generation hate the queen and the monarchy but I would like to just see peoples preference.

    Personally I think the Queen is brill, I mean shes like the grandma of a nation for christ sake. She is also incredibly beneficial for tourism!
    I agree with your view on the Queen! And every Brit only spend a quid a year for her which is definitely not a substantial amount for everyone's standards.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
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.