NationStates Jolt Archive

Other than being a good show and a reminder that the Middle Ages are long gone, they seem to be doing nothing useful. Or maybe that's just me.


But really. If I were in Britain (which may happen.... :shock: ) and were, for some odd reason, asked to show my respects for the royal family and act in good manner towards them. I'd give them my respect for being a struggling blue-blooded member of the gene pool. But I would NEVER treat them better than I treat my good ol President. Presidents, Queens, Kings, my friends, strangers. All are equals in my eye.


But enough about me. What's the point of that royal family?

I think they keep them around for tourists to gawk at--but they should be kept in museums insted of being allowed to clutter up all the finest palaces

Other than being a good show and a reminder that the Middle Ages are long gone, they seem to be doing nothing useful. Or maybe that's just me.


But really. If I were in Britain (which may happen.... :shock: ) and were, for some odd reason, asked to show my respects for the royal family and act in good manner towards them. I'd give them my respect for being a struggling blue-blooded member of the gene pool. But I would NEVER treat them better than I treat my good ol President. Presidents, Queens, Kings, my friends, strangers. All are equals in my eye.


But enough about me. What's the point of that royal family?
They appoint a few sirs and dames, plus queenie runs the C of E. Thered have to be a rejiggle of power if she left

As a foreigner I have to say that: to attract tourists and to be in the yellow press to make stories.
Having this royal family is one ot the things that makes Britain special.
Keep it.

They also act as a safety measure to stop an extremist party that may have say, split the vote almost exactly with a more sensible party. When the time comes, the king/queen is asked to choose the winner, they simply choose the more sensible of the parties to lead. Essentially, a non-political safety measure, in case parliament goes fubar. Also, they generate quite a bit through tourism, so that's nice.

There is no greater crime than privilege without doing anything to earn it. The royal family lives in extreme wealth while some people in Britain are poor.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

There is no greater crime than privilege without doing anything to earn it. The royal family lives in extreme wealth while some people in Britain are poor.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpgthe royal family should be on workfare

Yeah, they do kinda remind me of the President of the Universe in The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, don't they?

And how much money do you have, Letila?

There is no greater crime than privilege without doing anything to earn it. The royal family lives in extreme wealth while some people in Britain are poor.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Well, they are rich for a reason. THEY ARE DESCENDANTS OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAD ONCED CONTROLED A QUARTER OF THE EARTH! The queen is the descendant of the kings that ruled the british empire.so, they have to keep her as a symbol. obviously, she does hold any political power. she is just the descendant of the british kings, so leave them alone.

The British Monarchy has been around for almost 1,000 years. Besides the Royal family pretty much pays for itself (their agricultural lands are extensive and there is no doubt they have other worthwhile investments) so it is not like they are a burden on the average Briton.

Now...a British Republic would cost the average Briton a lot of money (even more than one would in Australia). This is because Britain has a lot of royal insignias, public buildings etc all with royal conotations. Not to mention the cost of removing "royal" from the Royal Navy - that would be a costly exercise in itself.

Britain has a rich heritage, and the Monarchy enhances that. The Queen does not exercise power in the way her predecessors could (under Victoria the sovereign became a constitutional monarch - subject to the will of the parliament) so it is not as if you are living under a tyrant like Charles II.

I believe that when William ascends to the throne, there will be a revival of interest in the royal family (positive not negative as in the tabloids). This will inevitably be good for Britain.

Well, they are rich for a reason. THEY ARE DESCENDANTS OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAD ONCED CONTROLED A QUARTER OF THE EARTH! The queen is the descendant of the kings that ruled the british empire.so, they have to keep her as a symbol. obviously, she does hold any political power. she is just the descendant of the british kings, so leave them alone.

So what! That doesn't mean that they work for 100 hours a week 100 times harder than the average person. Why should they get all that stuff when there are people struggling to survive?

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Well, they are rich for a reason. THEY ARE DESCENDANTS OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAD ONCED CONTROLED A QUARTER OF THE EARTH! The queen is the descendant of the kings that ruled the british empire.so, they have to keep her as a symbol. obviously, she does hold any political power. she is just the descendant of the british kings, so leave them alone.

So what! That doesn't mean that they work for 100 hours a week 100 times harder than the average person. Why should they get all that stuff when there are people struggling to survive?

So I gather you are against inherited wealth? I do hope that when your parents pass away (or any other relative) and leave you money, or a house etc...that you donate everything to the poor.

To suggest the royals do not deserve their wealth as it is inherited, yet to ignore the fact that most people inherit something from their elders is hypocritical.

Well, they are rich for a reason. THEY ARE DESCENDANTS OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAD ONCED CONTROLED A QUARTER OF THE EARTH! The queen is the descendant of the kings that ruled the british empire.so, they have to keep her as a symbol. obviously, she does hold any political power. she is just the descendant of the british kings, so leave them alone.

So what! That doesn't mean that they work for 100 hours a week 100 times harder than the average person. Why should they get all that stuff when there are people struggling to survive?

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

so you know what? we need to get rid of John kerry first, if we need to get rid of the royal family of england. he owns FIVE mansions {one isn't good enough for that brat} while people are struggeling to pay rent on their one roomed apartements.

:duplicate post:

BOOM!

gone.

That's a silly argument Akaviir. You can't just say they deserve their money because they are descendants of people who once controlled much of the planet. THOSE people didn't deserve their money either! They didn't earn it, it was given to them. All the real work over the centuries was done by government workers, not kings and queens, even if those people were relatives of the Crown.

But the fact is, there is little difference between the royal family and a rich commoner who inherited his money. Both didn't work to get their privelege, and yet both have it in spite of that. Unfortunate but a natural outcome of a money economy. However, from a political standpoint, the royal family is anachronistic and unnecessary. Regardless, when you consider that the royal family does no great harm and does some little good, it is simply more practical to keep them around.

So, from a philosophical standpoint: there is no reason to have a royal family.
But, from a practical one: there is no great harm, and some benefit, to having a royal family.

Theoretically the British should rid themselves of their national embarassment (perhaps not to them, but to everyone else), but they don't seem to mind, so they should keep it. I personally can't stand it when the American press covers the idiocies of that family, so I just wish that they were entitled to more privacy so I wouldn't have to hear about them so much.

Hey, Prince Philip is good for a few laughs. ;)

I wonder why they still bother to trot him out at public appearances. He's so out of touch and demented that he makes everyone else look compassionate and up to date by comparison, I suppose.

That's a silly argument Akaviir. You can't just say they deserve their money because they are descendants of people who once controlled much of the planet. THOSE people didn't deserve their money either! They didn't earn it, it was given to them. All the real work over the centuries was done by government workers, not kings and queens, even if those people were relatives of the Crown.

But the fact is, there is little difference between the royal family and a rich commoner who inherited his money. Both didn't work to get their privelege, and yet both have it in spite of that. Unfortunate but a natural outcome of a money economy. However, from a political standpoint, the royal family is anachronistic and unnecessary. Regardless, when you consider that the royal family does no great harm and does some little good, it is simply more practical to keep them around.

So, from a philosophical standpoint: there is no reason to have a royal family.
But, from a practical one: there is no great harm, and some benefit, to having a royal family.

Theoretically the British should rid themselves of their national embarassment (perhaps not to them, but to everyone else), but they don't seem to mind, so they should keep it. I personally can't stand it when the American press covers the idiocies of that family, so I just wish that they were entitled to more privacy so I wouldn't have to hear about them so much.

As a foreigner I have to say that: to attract tourists and to be in the yellow press to make stories.
Having this royal family is one ot the things that makes Britain special.
Keep it.

You can have them.

They attract a lot of tourists

Right, that's what we Britons want to be. A Dancing bear for the world to enjoy. And I suppose no republic has a tourist industry. I'm sure that tourists go to the top of the Eiffel Tower and think "It's not a bad view, but I think it is spoilt by the lack of a monarchy."*

@ whoever said that "the Monarchy keep extremist out of power."

Because The French Monarchy help prevent the Terror. Or the Romanovs stopped the Bolsheviks. Or that the Monarchy stopped the Khymer Rouge. That claim is impossible to hold. Many republics have lasted fine without extremist parties taking control.

The Monarchy are good for nothing other than keeping the country looking backward to a 'golden age' (if there ever was such a thing). And the comment about the yellow press. We have Big Brother now. I know I don't BB, but if it was choice between BB and a monarchy I know what I would choose (hint: It would be the Germans).


*Apologies to Mark Steel.

so you know what? we need to get rid of John kerry first, if we need to get rid of the royal family of england. he owns FIVE mansions {one isn't good enough for that brat} while people are struggeling to pay rent on their one roomed apartements.

I agree. We need to get rid of government.

So I gather you are against inherited wealth?

Yes.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I think they're around to give Brits a sense of natn'l pride, however I like to take pride that the USA was never ruled by a monarchy

I think they're around to give Brits a sense of natn'l pride, however I like to take pride that the USA was never ruled by a monarchy

I have national pride. But my pride come from the fact that we were home to the chartists, an asylum for political refugees, the birthplace of great political agitators like Tom Paine and Charlie Chaplin and many other things, completely unrelated to the monarchy.

I could never hate the US. How could I hate a nation with the common sense to throw off the shackels of our Monarchy. I just wish Britain had as much pride in itself as the founding father and the revolutionaries did just over two hundred years ago.

@Conceptualists

"Right, that's what we Britons want to be. A Dancing bear for the world to enjoy."
Well, that´s the only thing you can do, hehehehe :)
After all: the times of the British empire are over :oops:
The only thing that´s left is the glamour of the royal family. The queen is as a matter of fact formal head of state of many nations (e.g. Canda, Australia, UK, others). And she is head of the Commenwealth as well. All those positions would be lost and their wouldn´t be the british representation.
Then the only thing left for Britain is the position of junior partner of the US :wink: . A position Britain is doing well in. I like to see that such an experienced old european country stand on the side of the US and giving them support and advice if needed. Also it keeps Europe and the US together which is in my view important.

A monarch as an integration figure can serve the UK very well. After all: the UK is not only England but also Wales and Scottland. The royal family and the royal positions and titles reflect this fact.
The fact that a monarchy can serve very well you can see in Spain. It was king Juan Carlos who led the country back to democracy.
The monarch has a kind of reserve function. That is actually simular to that of a president in a parlamentarian democracy (like in Germany or Austria). I see no reason for Britain to get rid of the monarchy.
I don´t want to see that and as far as I know the vast majority of Brits don´t as well.
The British monarchy is going to remain, as it is in Spain, Netherlands, Luxemburg, Belgium, Liechtenstein, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and many other countries around the world.


And I suppose no republic has a tourist industry. I'm sure that tourists go to the top of the Eiffel Tower and think "It's not a bad view, but I think it is spoilt by the lack of a monarchy."

As someone posted earlier, while the royal family has had little political power since Queen Victoria, and especially after her successors, the current queen and her successors play the vital role of political continuity, similar to the role played by the Irish president. The Queen, as head of state, is supposed to remain aloof from the hurly-burly of political discourse, to provide sane advice and guidance to the politicians -- whether that actually occurs in practice is beside the point.

And, as others have mentioned, considering all the scandals various presidents and heads of government in various countries cough, US, Canada, France have tumbled into, the royal family doesn't really seem all that much worse, especially if it continues to modernise itself.

I think they're around to give Brits a sense of natn'l pride, however I like to take pride that the USA was never ruled by a monarchy
well, it wa sruled by the british, so i guess that the pride should be that the USA overcame democracy.

we have prospered for 1000 years with a royal family. no one has beaten us in that time. we loose the royal family we loose our identity. We have the best military in the world who take an oath to the queen. There is no republic better than ours. Just listen to our anthem. other countries dont want to loose the queen as their soverign. the Americans even call her 'our queen'. i cant imagine britian without the monarchy. The empire was the greatest thing to happen to this planet, the USA wouldnt be here without us and most of the world wouldnt be as civilised as it is without us. the monarchy cause no harm and only take a poxy 8 miliion from us! More has been wasted else where. Its a good investment. Cromwell proved that Britain Is no good without a monarch.

this is from Britaini's big brother so dont blame her for this. I just cant accept Britain as a rebublic. i will always be a Subject of Her majesty. The rest of you should be honoured for the privileged.

@Conceptualists

"Right, that's what we Britons want to be. A Dancing bear for the world to enjoy."
Well, that´s the only thing you can do, hehehehe :)
After all: the times of the British empire are over :oops:
The only thing that´s left is the glamour of the royal family. The queen is as a matter of fact formal head of state of many nations (e.g. Canda, Australia, UK, others). And she is head of the Commenwealth as well. All those positions would be lost and their wouldn´t be the british representation.

I really don't care that the Empire is gone. As I said before, my national pride doesn't stem from that imperialist crap.

The Monarchy is not glamourous. And I know that they are the head of state for other countries. But why should other countries dictate what we do?

Then the only thing left for Britain is the position of junior partner of the US :wink: . A position Britain is doing well in. I like to see that such an experienced old european country stand on the side of the US and giving them support and advice if needed. Also it keeps Europe and the US together which is in my view important.

A monarchy is not needed for these things.

A monarch as an integration figure can serve the UK very well. After all: the UK is not only England but also Wales and Scottland. The royal family and the royal positions and titles reflect this fact.

Thank you for telling me the constitution of my country. btw, did you know that the USA is made up of 50 states?

The fact that a monarchy can serve very well you can see in Spain. It was king Juan Carlos who led the country back to democracy.
The monarch has a kind of reserve function.

Great, but still, that doesn't prove that a lack of a monarch creates a dictatorship, which was my point.

That is actually simular to that of a president in a parlamentarian democracy (like in Germany or Austria). I see no reason for Britain to get rid of the monarchy.[/quote]

What is this reserve function. Considering that they have no power (since they are part of the PMs 'royal perogative' powers)

I don´t want to see that and as far as I know the vast majority of Brits don´t as well.

No offence, but your not British so you don't count. ;) And btw it isn't a vast majority. There is a majority, but it is not 'vast' I'll try and find some stats.

we have prospered for 1000 years with a royal family. no one has beaten us in that time.

Right :roll: 100 years war ring any bells? Or anyof the times we were invaded, but I suppose that doesn't count because the victor became King.

we loose the royal family we loose our identity.

Please, our identity is far more than some poxy nobles.

We have the best military in the world who take an oath to the queen.

I suppose if they stopped then the SAS would forget how to fire a gun right?

There is no republic better than ours.

Do you ever listen to yourself?

Just listen to our anthem.

Note to non-Brits: Please don't. It's crap. A GCSE student could do better.

other countries dont want to loose the queen as their soverign.

They can have her then. Why should we be dictated to by people who don't live in the country.

the Americans even call her 'our queen'.

What does this prove?

i cant imagine britian without the monarchy.

And I can't imagine quantum particles. Just because it is beyond ones imagination, does not mean it is impossible.

The empire was the greatest thing to happen to this planet, the USA wouldnt be here without us and most of the world wouldnt be as civilised as it is without us.

Great, but keep it where it belongs. In the past!

the monarchy cause no harm and only take a poxy 8 miliion from us! More has been wasted else where. Its a good investment.

What are the real benefits.

Cromwell proved that Britain Is no good without a monarch.

And George IV and many others prove that all monarchs are right in the head right?

this is from Britaini's big brother so dont blame her for this.

For what? The servile attitude the Monarchy breeds?

I just cant accept Britain as a rebublic. i will always be a Subject of Her majesty. The rest of you should be honoured for the privileged.

Great, you can go into exile with her. If she doesn't go into exile, what will you do?

But why should we be honoured to be ruled over by an unelected pure blooded mongrel?

:::

:::

Thank you for telling me the constitution of my country. btw, did you know that the USA is made up of 50 states?.

As far as I know Britain hasn´t got a CONSTITUITION.
But you are going to have to vote on an European constituition, which you certainly reject I assume.
I´m fully aware of the facts of the US. They have got a president. Do you want a president for Britain???

The fact that a monarchy can serve very well you can see in Spain. It was king Juan Carlos who led the country back to democracy.
The monarch has a kind of reserve function.


What is this reserve function. Considering that they have no power (since they are part of the PMs 'royal perogative' powers)]

Well: I´m not British. But I know that the leader of the largest party in the house of commons is the appointed prime minister by the monarch. What´s going to happen if two parties having the same amount of mandates in the Commons?? Wouldn´t it be the monarch who decides about who should become prime minister???



No offence, but your not British so you don't count. ;) And btw it isn't a vast majority. There is a majority, but it is not 'vast' I'll try and find some stats.

I´ve heard it is a substantial majority. By the way: majority is majority.
I bet there is going to be a monarch in Britain even in fifthy years.
You are rather giving up the pound and join the Euro than to give up monarchy - which by the way can still exists if Britains joins the Euro - on the backside of the coins it would also still be possible to put the image of the queen.

what my brother actually meant is don't blame what ever he said on me.. he does'nt want you to blame me for his opinions!

I'd like to apologise if any one took offence, however I agree that the monarchy are part of the countries identity. Whether you know it or not, they are'nt just kept around mainly for the sake of having a Royal Family. Every decision made in parliament in the end is taken to the Queen and none of them are made possible with out Her permission.

I think they're around to give Brits a sense of natn'l pride, however I like to take pride that the USA was never ruled by a monarchy

King George III was King of the American colonies. The 13 original colonies of modern say USA were ruled by Britain until 1783 (when they withdrew completely).

As far as I know Britain hasn´t got a CONSTITUITION.


Ah, well, NationStates has been a learning experience for you today then: the UK has a constitution, but it is an unwritten one.

what my brother actually meant is don't blame what ever he said on me.. he does'nt want you to blame me for his opinions!

I'd like to apologise if any one took offence, however I agree that the monarchy are part of the countries identity. Whether you know it or not, they are'nt just kept around mainly for the sake of having a Royal Family. Every decision made in parliament in the end is taken to the Queen and none of them are made possible with out Her permission.

I assumed that to be the case. In the US the head of state even has a veto right against passed laws. In other countries with a parlamentarian democracy the head of state (monarch or president) can reject to sign a bill if he/she considers it to be unconstitutional.

They also act as a safety measure to stop an extremist party that may have say, split the vote almost exactly with a more sensible party. When the time comes, the king/queen is asked to choose the winner, they simply choose the more sensible of the parties to lead.

You haven't done much research on Edward VIII, have you - when you have a Nazi sympathiser sitting on the throne the whole system breaks down somewhat, no?

Thank you for telling me the constitution of my country. btw, did you know that the USA is made up of 50 states?.

As far as I know Britain hasn´t got a CONSTITUITION.
But you are going to have to vote on an European constituition, which you certainly reject I assume.
I´m fully aware of the facts of the US. They have got a president. Do you want a president for Britain???

Every country has a constitution (note small 'c'), it is how the country is made up. The British constitution does exist, but it is unwritten (or, to be technical, uncodified). It is made up of various things (read Bagehot "The British Constitution").

My point of the 50 states was that you telling me that Britain is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and N Ireland is like me telling you that the US is made up of 50 states.

The fact that a monarchy can serve very well you can see in Spain. It was king Juan Carlos who led the country back to democracy.
The monarch has a kind of reserve function.


What is this reserve function. Considering that they have no power (since they are part of the PMs 'royal perogative' powers)]

Well: I´m not British. But I know that the leader of the largest party in the house of commons is the appointed prime minister by the monarch. What´s going to happen if two parties having the same amount of mandates in the Commons?? Wouldn´t it be the monarch who decides about who should become prime minister???

This is convention. (I might add, a nessassary part of the British constitution). A monarch is not needed for convention. Anyway, it can easily be put into a written/codified Constitution. You still haven't explained the reserve function.



No offence, but your not British so you don't count. ;) And btw it isn't a vast majority. There is a majority, but it is not 'vast' I'll try and find some stats.

I´ve heard it is a substantial majority. By the way: majority is majority.
I bet there is going to be a monarch in Britain even in fifthy years.
You are rather giving up the pound and join the Euro than to give up monarchy - which by the way can still exists if Britains joins the Euro - on the backside of the coins it would also still be possible to put the image of the queen.[/quote]

Still looking for stats.

As far as I know Britain hasn´t got a CONSTITUITION.


Ah, well, NationStates has been a learning experience for you today then: the UK has a constitution, but it is an unwritten one.

Britain has the Common law.
But where is a defined constituition???? There are legal principles and precedents. But where is a catalogue of basic principles which all other principles and precedents have to follow???
A constituition is in fact a kind of basic law. Where is that??? Where is a distinction between "normal" law and "constituitional" law or normal precedents and constituitional precendents???

I´m unaware that that exists. Britain has a historicly grown structure but not a constituition in the sense of the word. That is a thing it shares with the state of Israel, which doesn´t have a constituition as well.

:::

what my brother actually meant is don't blame what ever he said on me.. he does'nt want you to blame me for his opinions!

No worries on that score. :D

I'd like to apologise if any one took offence, however I agree that the monarchy are part of the countries identity. Whether you know it or not, they are'nt just kept around mainly for the sake of having a Royal Family. Every decision made in parliament in the end is taken to the Queen and none of them are made possible with out Her permission.

Fine, they are part of the countries identity, but the national indentiyy goes (or should go) far further than noble flauting about in mansions.


ON THE MONARCHY'S SUPPORT IN BRITAIN:


If the Queen retires, less than half (47%) of British adults would want to keep the monarchy as it is, according to a survey conducted by MORI. The survey — for Republic (the campaign for an elected head of state for Britain) — shows a third (35%) favour a scaled down monarchy, and 17% an elected head of state. One per cent say no to all these options.

If given a choice between Charles becoming King or an elected head of state, just over half of British adults (55%) say they would prefer Charles crowned king while nearly a third (31%) would want an elected head of state.

http://www.mori.com/polls/monarchy/luxury.shtml

Q. The Royal Family is an expensive luxury the country cannot afford?

* Agree Disagree Don't Know
* % % %
*1987 27 60 13
*1990 24 70 6
*1991 42 52 6
*1996 42 49 9
*Jun 2000 40 55 5

http://www.mori.com/polls/monarchy/abolish.shtml

Q On balance, do you think Britain would be better off or worse off if the monarchy was abolished or do you think it would make no difference?


Not really as popular as made out to be.
;)

Britain has the Common law.
But where is a defined constituition???? There are legal principles and precedents. But where is a catalogue of basic principles which all other principles and precedents have to follow???
A constituition is in fact a kind of basic law. Where is that??? Where is a distinction between "normal" law and "constituitional" law or normal precedents and constituitional precendents???

I´m unaware that that exists. Britain has a historicly grown structure but not a constituition in the sense of the word. That is a thing it shares with the state of Israel, which doesn´t have a constituition as well.

A constitution is how a country is made up. (ie constituencies etc). Not just a document.

"But where is a catalogue of basic principles which all other principles and precedents have to follow???"

Hence, uncodified.

Please give up. You are argueing with some of the finest minds of the past hundred years. The word 'Constitution' is far more far reaching then the American Idea of it.

Britain's system of government is a good one (The Westminster system). At least they cannot end up like the US....

e.g. A Democrat in the White House, but a Republican majority in Congress! That is bound to be counter productive on big issues.

Under the Westminster system, the Prime Minister belongs to the party with the most votes. He/she ultimately makes the decisions.

The British sovereign is actually a rubber stamp...the Queen cannot actually block what Parliament decides (not since Queen Victoria). The Queen is above politics...that is what a Head of State should be - neutral.

Sadly, the US head of state weilds too much power in my opinion.

Britain's system of government is a good one (The Westminster system). At least they cannot end up like the US....

e.g. A Democrat in the White House, but a Republican majority in Congress! That is bound to be counter productive on big issues.

Under the Westminster system, the Prime Minister belongs to the party with the most votes. He/she ultimately makes the decisions.

The British sovereign is actually a rubber stamp...the Queen cannot actually block what Parliament decides (not since Queen Victoria). The Queen is above politics...that is what a Head of State should be - neutral.

Sadly, the US head of state weilds too much power in my opinion.

A cerimonial (sp?) President can also be above politics.

Also, a lot of monarchists claim that the Queen is nessassery because she advises the PM. How can the Queen be above politics and advise a PM?

I think that maybe we do perhaps spend too much on them, but we still need them. They're not purely there as a tourist attraction, and they do believe it or not serve a purpose in our way of life, whether we realise it or not. I'm sure that this can easily be linked with a sort of national pride that we are too stubborn to give up, and that's perhaps true to an extent, but what's so wrong with Pride? Perhaps we are ready for some sort of change, but why does that have to be now? In these times, maybe its this sense of familiarity and comfort, perhaps security that they offer that helps people get through their day!? And like I said, they're not there for the sake of it, they do more than we probably know!

[quote=Britaini]what my brother actually meant is don't blame what ever he said on me.. he does'nt want you to blame me for his opinions!

No worries on that score. :D

Thanks for that! :)

Right, here it is. What the hell do we gain by abolishing the monarch? Will everyone in Britain sleep soundly because Mr President can take better care of them? Will our troops magically become even better? Will our economy boom? What will we gain? I can't see a plus side.
Yes, the plan does fall down a bit when a politically active King or Queen is there, but I don't care. It's never done us any harm, has it?

@Conceptualists,

following that argument every country would have a constituition, at least if it has a working state and political system. Then of course you would say Israel is having a constituition although it hasn´t. And by the way: the lack of having a constituition is seen as a problem in Israel.

A constituition is by the way more than just defining the structure of the state and the working of its bodies. It is also stating the prerogative of certain rights - human rights - above other laws. If this isn´t codified how is it ensured that courts and legislature really follow does principles?????

"Please give up. You are argueing with some of the finest minds of the past hundred years. The word 'Constitution' is far more far reaching then the American Idea of it."
You are showing great modesty :? why do you say hundred and not thousand years???? :twisted:
By the way: it is not only the american, but also the french version and the version of all other countries around the world to have a writen constituition - except for the UK and Israel. You can keep it that way if you like - as well as you can and should keep monarchy as well as left-side driving and other things. The are things which make Britain special.

Regarding the poll figures you presented me - it springs in my eye that only 17% are in favour of an elected head of state, which is after all the ONLY alternative. Every state has a head of state: and if it isn´t a monarch you need to elect one. Obviously you are with your view far away from reaching a majority. 17% for an elected head of state is very little indeed.

Britain's system of government is a good one (The Westminster system). At least they cannot end up like the US....

e.g. A Democrat in the White House, but a Republican majority in Congress! That is bound to be counter productive on big issues.

Under the Westminster system, the Prime Minister belongs to the party with the most votes. He/she ultimately makes the decisions.

The British sovereign is actually a rubber stamp...the Queen cannot actually block what Parliament decides (not since Queen Victoria). The Queen is above politics...that is what a Head of State should be - neutral.

Sadly, the US head of state weilds too much power in my opinion.

A cerimonial (sp?) President can also be above politics.

Also, a lot of monarchists claim that the Queen is nessassery because she advises the PM. How can the Queen be above politics and advise a PM?

What kind of advice? When I refer to politics, I mean ideological conflict (e.g. abortion). So you are saying the Queen takes Blair aside and says something like "Blair darling, I don't like this abortion legislation. Vote against it or I will send you to the tower pronto"?

I think that maybe we do perhaps spend too much on them, but we still need them. They're not purely there as a tourist attraction,

Have you no national pride. Or do you enjoy Britain being a 'Victorian amusement park?'

and they do believe it or not serve a purpose in our way of life, whether we realise it or not.

pray tell what this purpose is

I'm sure that this can easily be linked with a sort of national pride that we are too stubborn to give up,

But not to proud to not want to be seen as being 'quaint'?

and that's perhaps true to an extent, but what's so wrong with Pride?

Nothing is wrong with it, but there is a fundemental contradiction at the heart of it.

Perhaps we are ready for some sort of change, but why does that have to be now?

Why not. Carpe Diem and all that.

In these times, maybe its this sense of familiarity and comfort, perhaps security that they offer that helps people get through their day!? And like I said, they're not there for the sake of it, they do more than we probably know!


Fine, for some it is the fags, but for others it is the knowledge that we are keeping a load of nobles happy whilst they squander our hard earned cash.

They're just for show. Their familiy used to own the whole country, I think it was rather sporting of them to give it up. At least let them keep their palaces :D

Right, here it is. What the hell do we gain by abolishing the monarch? Will everyone in Britain sleep soundly because Mr President can take better care of them? Will our troops magically become even better? Will our economy boom? What will we gain? I can't see a plus side.
Yes, the plan does fall down a bit when a politically active King or Queen is there, but I don't care. It's never done us any harm, has it?

It will save money. It will further democracy. It will mean that (God forbid) we will all be treated equal before the law.


What kind of advice? When I refer to politics, I mean ideological conflict (e.g. abortion). So you are saying the Queen takes Blair aside and says something like "Blair darling, I don't like this abortion legislation. Vote against it or I will send you to the tower pronto"?

I have no idea what kind of advise. The Monarchist League were quite secret about that. So, ask them.

@ Kybernetia:

Forgive my ignorance, but I know next to nothing about Isreal, and I don't feel like bluffing my way by pretending I do.

A constituition is by the way more than just defining the structure of the state and the working of its bodies. It is also stating the prerogative of certain rights - human rights - above other laws. If this isn´t codified how is it ensured that courts and legislature really follow does principles?????

We do have that. It is a little document called the European Convention on Human Rights.

You are showing great modesty why do you say hundred and not thousand years????
By the way: it is not only the american, but also the french version and the version of all other countries around the world to have a writen constituition - except for the UK and Israel. You can keep it that way if you like - as well as you can and should keep monarchy as well as left-side driving and other things. The are things which make Britain special

I wasn't refering to me (or anyone on these boards) by the 'finest minds' comment. But to people like Bagehot.

Which is also why I said hundred rather than thousand. Because I do not know any documents or books that old (except maybe the Magna Carta).

You have a codified Constitution. We have an uncodified constitution (try here (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/british_constitution.htm)). I have no idea about Isreal. And I know that nearly every other country has one.

Regarding the poll figures you presented me - it springs in my eye that only 17% are in favour of an elected head of state, which is after all the ONLY alternative. Every state has a head of state: and if it isn´t a monarch you need to elect one. Obviously you are with your view far away from reaching a majority. 17% for an elected head of state is very little indeed.


Less then half of the adult population want it as it is. Which in my eyes doesn't represent a level of monarchism that we are led to believe exists. 40% say the Royal Family is an expensive luxury the country cannot afford. ditto.

for example; She appoints the Prime minister,
She approves legistration,
She is the Head of ARmed Forces,
Governer of the Church of England..

..and so on...

@Conceptualists

"This is convention. (I might add, a nessassary part of the British constitution). A monarch is not needed for convention. Anyway, it can easily be put into a written/codified Constitution. You still haven't explained the reserve function."
I´m not an expert on british law. But I have asked YOU a question. What happends if two parties have the same number of seats? Wouldn´t the monarch need to make the choice of deciding who should be prime minister??? Wouldn´t that be considered as a reserve function to make shure - or find a way that a government can be formed even in a situation when no party could claim victory??
The monarch may decide to reject laws - refusing to sign it.
That rights may not be used often or at all. But they are still there as a reserve against a government who may does mischief.
It is of course also possible to have all this with a president. But anyway: you need a head of state. Why do you want to change the current system?? What´s so bad about it in your view???

for example; She appoints the Prime minister,
She approves legistration,
She is the Head of ARmed Forces,
Governer of the Church of England..

..and so on...

These can all be tied up in a codified Constitution.

Appointment of the PM in now convention, everyone knows how it works.

A president can sign legitslation

A soldier can be head of the armed forces (forgive me if this is a crazy idea)

A cleric can be the Governer of the CoE (ditto)

And just because we have a Queen it does'nt make us a 'Victorian amusement park'. You can call anything like that a 'tourist attraction'.. Just because the Americans have a President does that make them one? Or just because according to religion Bethlehem was the birth place of Christ, does that make that a tourist attraction?!

@Conceptualists

"This is convention. (I might add, a nessassary part of the British constitution). A monarch is not needed for convention. Anyway, it can easily be put into a written/codified Constitution. You still haven't explained the reserve function."
I´m not an expert on british law. But I have asked YOU a question. What happends if two parties have the same number of seats? Wouldn´t the monarch need to make the choice of deciding who should be prime minister??? Wouldn´t that be considered as a reserve function to make shure - or find a way that a government can be formed even in a situation when no party could claim victory??

either:
a) One side will form a coalition.
b) There will be another election
c) The Queen will decide.

Since there is no precedent for it is hard to say what would happen. I reckon a) will. b) is too unworkable. With c), how could the Queen decide who is PM if she is meant to be apolitical?

The monarch may decide to reject laws - refusing to sign it.
That rights may not be used often or at all. But they are still there as a reserve against a government who may does mischief.

She can't. And there is a precedent for this. The last time this happened there was a civil war.

It is of course also possible to have all this with a president. But anyway: you need a head of state. Why do you want to change the current system?? What´s so bad about it in your view???

Forgive me if I believe that liberty and equality are the highest ideals. Or that a state should serve the people rather than the other way round. Or that society should not be split because of the 'pedigree' of your blood. Or that some one unelected should recieve that much money and influence for nothing.

And just because we have a Queen it does'nt make us a 'Victorian amusement park'. You can call anything like that a 'tourist attraction'.. Just because the Americans have a President does that make them one? Or just because according to religion Bethlehem was the birth place of Christ, does that make that a tourist attraction?!

My point wasn't:

Britain has a monarchy, therefore, we are a "Victorian......"

but

Me: Why have a monarchy?

Monarchist: They bring in a lot of tourists

Me: Why should Britain be a victorian....

ie, the only purpose the HoS has is to attract tourists.

@Conceptualists,

oh really you were not referring to yourself: you are too modest :wink:
I know of course that Britain is the country with the longest democratic history and parliamentarian tradition. Respect for that :D
That was possible without any revolution and violence. The british system was flexible enough to reform itself and also the monarchy was flexible enough to reform itself as well.
One of the advantages of the common law is its flexibilty. It can be developed by the courts and doesn´t need so many changes by the legislature as the roman law - which is the legal system in all of continental europe - requires.
And end of the British monarchy would not be a reform: it would be an extreme change - a revolutionary change. Why do you see that as necessary?????
After all: you need to convince a majority for a republic and an elected head of state. And according to the poll you presented her only 17% want this alternative - which is THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE.
The fact that there is currently dissatisfaction with some parts of the royal family doesn´t make a change likely. Even Prince Charles - which I do respect - I think he would be a good king - who doesn´t have a high popularity by now would be prefered in comparison to a republic according to your numbers.
And his son - Prince William - may be able to regain support for the monarchy if he becomes prince of Wales.

In response to conceptualists:
"It will save money. It will further democracy. It will mean that (God forbid) we will all be treated equal before the law"

I ain't buying. The monarchy make money, so they aren't costing us a penny. In fact, as has been pointed out, the cost to change everything that has "royal" or "h.m" or whatever, would be rather expensive.
As for furthering democracy, no, it won't. We already have elections to decide who runs the country. I doubt if anyone thinks the queen does more than rubber stamp laws and turn up to open things. If we had a president, I wouldn't be thinking. "Wow, I never realised that I wasn't free before." Would I?
Finally, the equal before the law statement doesn't stand. We are all equal before the law. Monarchs can be tried just the same as citizens. (if you're going to make the subject distinction, don't bother. There is no difference in our nation, is there? It's just one word instead of another.)
In fact, now that I think of it, equal before the law. Are you worried that the Queen will mug you?

In response to conceptualists:
"It will save money. It will further democracy. It will mean that (God forbid) we will all be treated equal before the law"

I ain't buying. The monarchy make money, so they aren't costing us a penny. In fact, as has been pointed out, the cost to change everything that has "royal" or "h.m" or whatever, would be rather expensive.
As for furthering democracy, no, it won't. We already have elections to decide who runs the country. I doubt if anyone thinks the queen does more than rubber stamp laws and turn up to open things. If we had a president, I wouldn't be thinking. "Wow, I never realised that I wasn't free before." Would I?
Finally, the equal before the law statement doesn't stand. We are all equal before the law. Monarchs can be tried just the same as citizens. (if you're going to make the subject distinction, don't bother. There is no difference in our nation, is there? It's just one word instead of another.)
In fact, now that I think of it, equal before the law. Are you worried that the Queen will mug you?

I think the royal family is kept out of tradition more than anything else. Yes, they live lavishly, but I think many people would cry if you told them you'd like to take the queen away from them. Hell, look at what happened when Diana died.

I remember my mother-in-law being very upset, and she made a point of signing the book of condolences. I think she'd do the same if the queen died.

They are mainly figureheads, although they serve some purpose in terms of diplomatic finesse. They entertain other heads of state, make public appearances, raise scruffy dogs and call them pedigreed corgis...

For the most part, people ignore or adore them, for better or worse. It's tradition. It's the reason the prime minister lives at 10 Downing Street. It's a stupid, run-down house, but it's tradition.

In response to conceptualists:
"It will save money. It will further democracy. It will mean that (God forbid) we will all be treated equal before the law"

I ain't buying. The monarchy make money, so they aren't costing us a penny. In fact, as has been pointed out, the cost to change everything that has "royal" or "h.m" or whatever, would be rather expensive.
As for furthering democracy, no, it won't. We already have elections to decide who runs the country. I doubt if anyone thinks the queen does more than rubber stamp laws and turn up to open things. If we had a president, I wouldn't be thinking. "Wow, I never realised that I wasn't free before." Would I?
Finally, the equal before the law statement doesn't stand. We are all equal before the law. Monarchs can be tried just the same as citizens. (if you're going to make the subject distinction, don't bother. There is no difference in our nation, is there? It's just one word instead of another.)
In fact, now that I think of it, equal before the law. Are you worried that the Queen will mug you?

How do the Monarchy make money?

And don't use Crown lands. Because they belong to the state, not the individual.

And if they make money, why do they get taxpayers money?

Where was it pointed out that the cost to change the small things would cost alot? and was it justified?

No I am not worried the queen will mug me. Forgive if I rushed some sentences without think, I have been awake far too long. Sorry.

Can I also say something about the presidency? It's actually supposed to be a position something like chairperson. He's supposed to be a spokesperson for the delegates from each state. He isn't supposed to have absolute power. I don't know when this changed, probably after the civil war, when division and autonomy were eradicated.

Why should the queen get 8 million a year?

Just because people wish to keep the monarchy does'nt mean that these people don't idealise freedom and equality. I mean really, is there actually ANYONE that wants to live without equality? It's true, EVERYONE has to abide by the laws which are stated, even the Royals. And when has a member of the royal family ever restricted freedoms?

Why should the queen get 8 million a year?

Exactly. That money was taken through armed robbery.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

@Conceptualists,
"either:
a) One side will form a coalition.
b) There will be another election
c) The Queen will decide.

Since there is no precedent for it is hard to say what would happen. I reckon a) will. b) is too unworkable. With c), how could the Queen decide who is PM if she is meant to be apolitical?"
You see one weakness of the common law. If there wasn´t a precendent you can not tell. I could tell you that in my country the president - who normally has only representative functions and should stand above the parties - has a reserve function in this case. If no party is able to get an absolute majoriy for its candidate in parliament than the president may decide to appoint the one with a relative majority or decide for new elections.
That is one of the so-called reserve functions of the president, which are only required in exceptional times. So far they weren´t be used since a situation never accured up till now. But there is a legal framework for this situation.

"Quote:
The monarch may decide to reject laws - refusing to sign it.
That rights may not be used often or at all. But they are still there as a reserve against a government who may does mischief.
She can't. And there is a precedent for this. The last time this happened there was a civil war."
Now I make an extreme example which is not going to happen but theoreticaly possible. The Commons passes a law banning all parties except the currently ruling party. Would the queen be forced to sign that?? Would she be forced to sign any law which is obviously in flagrant violation to the guiding principles of the country????

"Forgive me if I believe that liberty and equality are the highest ideals. Or that a state should serve the people rather than the other way round"
I believe that too, but I´m questioning whether a parlamentarian monarchy is in violation of those principals. I don´t think so.

Monarchy and dictatorships are the best nations. :lol:

Earlier, like page two. (by the way, I'm really just debating with you for the sake of it. Like most debates, we are unlikely to change each others views, since we have already made them. The queen jibe was a joke.)
The monarchy makes money, because of (dun dun dun!) tourism. But wait, there's more. I am not saying, like you have been so quick to point out, that republics don't have tourists. They obviously do. This is just an edge we have, that they don't. It's not a life and death, but we would be paying for the upkeep of these houses anyway, as tourist attractions. Why not have the extra funds?

@Conceptualists,
"either:
a) One side will form a coalition.
b) There will be another election
c) The Queen will decide.

Since there is no precedent for it is hard to say what would happen. I reckon a) will. b) is too unworkable. With c), how could the Queen decide who is PM if she is meant to be apolitical?"
You see one weakness of the common law. If there wasn´t a precendent you can not tell. I could tell you that in my country the president - who normally has only representative functions and should stand above the parties - has a reserve function in this case. If no party is able to get an absolute majoriy for its candidate in parliament than the president may decide to appoint the one with a relative majority or decide for new elections.
That is one of the so-called reserve functions of the president, which are only required in exceptional times. So far they weren´t be used since a situation never accured up till now. But there is a legal framework for this situation.

Great, but that does not prove there is no constitution.

"Quote:
The monarch may decide to reject laws - refusing to sign it.
That rights may not be used often or at all. But they are still there as a reserve against a government who may does mischief.
She can't. And there is a precedent for this. The last time this happened there was a civil war."
Now I make an extreme example which is not going to happen but theoreticaly possible. The Commons passes a law banning all parties except the currently ruling party. Would the queen be forced to sign that?? Would she be forced to sign any law which is obviously in flagrant violation to the guiding principles of the country????

It couldn't pass, because of the European Convention of Human Rights ;)


Any way I think it is time to go up the wooden hill for me. (or down in my case).

Exactly, there is nothing wrong with it, and other places do it!

(Also, thats the beauty about debates..because everyone is far too stubborn to change their minds-or atleast admit to it-they could go on forever.. until you decide to leave that is)

*watches in awe*

dude.....just...*walks out*

we have prospered for 1000 years with a royal family. no one has beaten us in that time. we loose the royal family we loose our identity. We have the best military in the world who take an oath to the queen. There is no republic better than ours. Just listen to our anthem. other countries dont want to loose the queen as their soverign. the Americans even call her 'our queen'. i cant imagine britian without the monarchy. The empire was the greatest thing to happen to this planet, the USA wouldnt be here without us and most of the world wouldnt be as civilised as it is without us. the monarchy cause no harm and only take a poxy 8 miliion from us! More has been wasted else where. Its a good investment. Cromwell proved that Britain Is no good without a monarch.

this is from Britaini's big brother so dont blame her for this. I just cant accept Britain as a rebublic. i will always be a Subject of Her majesty. The rest of you should be honoured for the privileged.

guess who beat you in that 1000 year time? America. well, i mean colonials in 1783.

guess who beat you in that 1000 year time? America. well, i mean colonials in 1783

With already selt with that load of bull.

guess who beat you in that 1000 year time? America. well, i mean colonials in 1783.[/quote]


Yeah, who started up most the colonies?

Yeah, who started up most the colonies?

The French?

But I would NEVER treat them better than I treat my good ol President. Presidents, Queens, Kings, my friends, strangers. All are equals in my eye.

That reminds me of the old Lily Tomlin skit about Ernestine Tomlin, the smart-alecky operator at the Phone Company (AT&T long before the breakup) talking about the Phone Company's service: "Serving everyone from Presidents and Kings to the scum of the Earth!"

I would think if you became a citizen of Great Britain, you would be expected to follow national protocols for treating the Royal Family, no matter how irrelevant you find them. The same for following certain protocols here for dealing with the President no matter how much you hate him.

Yeah, who started up most the colonies?

The French?

Possibly the Dutch?

Are there any Americans who know who set up the most colonies in the 'new world'?

Spain. Duh!

Spain. Duh!

Sorry, I shouldn't have used the term "New World," my bad. I meant in Northern America.

Are there any Americans who know who set up the most colonies in the 'new world'?

I assume that the North-Eastern Asians that walked over the Bering land bridge are being ignored in this discussion?

Are there any Americans who know who set up the most colonies in the 'new world'?

I assume that the North-Eastern Asians that walked over the Bering land bridge are being ignored in this discussion?

If they set up colonies, then no. ;)

If they set up colonies, then no. ;)

I assume that living there for over 10,000 years counts as colonisation.

[quote=Kybernetia]Quote:
"Quote:
The monarch may decide to reject laws - refusing to sign it.
That rights may not be used often or at all. But they are still there as a reserve against a government who may does mischief.
She can't. And there is a precedent for this. The last time this happened there was a civil war."
Now I make an extreme example which is not going to happen but theoreticaly possible. The Commons passes a law banning all parties except the currently ruling party. Would the queen be forced to sign that?? Would she be forced to sign any law which is obviously in flagrant violation to the guiding principles of the country????


It couldn't pass, because of the European Convention of Human Rights

.


I could be passed. However the European Court may declares it - on request of a british citizen or the european commission - in violation of european law and demands Britain to delete that law.
As a matter of fact: the fact that a constituition (usually written or in another form) does exist doesn´t prevent in a 100% of cases that laws are passed which are in compliance with that. This was just an extreme example. You can of course find less extreme ones.
And there the question is: would the head of state be forced to sign a bill which is in violation of the constituition. Or in other words: Has the head of state the right and the responsibiltiy to cheque the bills and has to right to refuse to sign them if they are unconstituitonal.
In my country it is agreed that the head of state has to sign the bills and that he only can refuse to do so in cases where the bills are uncostitiuitional. How far: it is disputed how far this right goes or to make it concrete: does he only have to cheque the formality (whether the process of passing the bill went the right way, e.g.) or also the material character of the bill (meaning whether he can cheque what the bill itself says with the constituition).

I apologize for my lack of knowledge. But is it even possible for a british court to declare a law invalid because of violating the "consitituitional" principles. What safeguards are there.
Or are there none, since the british democracy worked anyway??

Acutally people we're not all equal before the law. The Queen is immune from prosecution as she's head of the legal system. Technically, all criminal prosecutions are started by the Queen (Delegated to the CPS), which is why all cases are set out like: R v. Smith. You couldn't exactly have the Queen prosecuting herself.

If they set up colonies, then no. ;)

I assume that living there for over 10,000 years counts as colonisation.


Your are of course right that there were people over there before the Europeans arrived. However: todays America (North and South) wouldn´t be there in today form without the european colonisation.
Almost all states in America has a population which are in the overwhelming majority decandants of european immigrants. The form of government - even the idea of a state - is an european one.
The american constituition was partly inspired by France and the parlamentarian system by England.
And after all: the fact that the US has English as its language shows how far the English influence went. It was stronger than that of other colonial powers in North America like for a short while the Netherlands, France or Spain.

[quote=Kybernetia]Quote:
"Quote:
The monarch may decide to reject laws - refusing to sign it.
That rights may not be used often or at all. But they are still there as a reserve against a government who may does mischief.
She can't. And there is a precedent for this. The last time this happened there was a civil war."
Now I make an extreme example which is not going to happen but theoreticaly possible. The Commons passes a law banning all parties except the currently ruling party. Would the queen be forced to sign that?? Would she be forced to sign any law which is obviously in flagrant violation to the guiding principles of the country????


It couldn't pass, because of the European Convention of Human Rights

.


I could be passed. However the European Court may declares it - on request of a british citizen or the european commission - in violation of european law and demands Britain to delete that law.
As a matter of fact: the fact that a constituition (usually written or in another form) does exist doesn´t prevent in a 100% of cases that laws are passed which are in compliance with that. This was just an extreme example. You can of course find less extreme ones.
And there the question is: would the head of state be forced to sign a bill which is in violation of the constituition. Or in other words: Has the head of state the right and the responsibiltiy to cheque the bills and has to right to refuse to sign them if they are unconstituitonal.
In my country it is agreed that the head of state has to sign the bills and that he only can refuse to do so in cases where the bills are uncostitiuitional. How far: it is disputed how far this right goes or to make it concrete: does he only have to cheque the formality (whether the process of passing the bill went the right way, e.g.) or also the material character of the bill (meaning whether he can cheque what the bill itself says with the constituition).

I apologize for my lack of knowledge. But is it even possible for a british court to declare a law invalid because of violating the "consitituitional" principles. What safeguards are there.
Or are there none, since the british democracy worked anyway??

It couldn't be passed, because it would be struck down in the Lords as unconstitutional, and the Lords will have the backing of the courts and Europe.


A bill in violation of the constitution would even reach the Queen.

And yes it is possiblr for courts to declare a bill unconstitutional (although it goes by anouther name which escapes me)

The Head of State cannot refuse to sign anything, it is part of the constitution.

You do realise tha\t this is helping me? The current constitution is a mess, eliminating the monarch and bring in a codified constitution will help clear this all up.

As far as I can remember, there are safeguards.

Which are many and varied (my favorite cop out line).

Although you will have to bare with me, since I will need to dig out some long unused books.

[quote=Kybernetia]Quote:
"Quote:
The monarch may decide to reject laws - refusing to sign it.
That rights may not be used often or at all. But they are still there as a reserve against a government who may does mischief.
She can't. And there is a precedent for this. The last time this happened there was a civil war."
Now I make an extreme example which is not going to happen but theoreticaly possible. The Commons passes a law banning all parties except the currently ruling party. Would the queen be forced to sign that?? Would she be forced to sign any law which is obviously in flagrant violation to the guiding principles of the country????


It couldn't pass, because of the European Convention of Human Rights

.


I could be passed. However the European Court may declares it - on request of a british citizen or the european commission - in violation of european law and demands Britain to delete that law.
As a matter of fact: the fact that a constituition (usually written or in another form) does exist doesn´t prevent in a 100% of cases that laws are passed which are in compliance with that. This was just an extreme example. You can of course find less extreme ones.
And there the question is: would the head of state be forced to sign a bill which is in violation of the constituition. Or in other words: Has the head of state the right and the responsibiltiy to cheque the bills and has to right to refuse to sign them if they are unconstituitonal.
In my country it is agreed that the head of state has to sign the bills and that he only can refuse to do so in cases where the bills are uncostitiuitional. How far: it is disputed how far this right goes or to make it concrete: does he only have to cheque the formality (whether the process of passing the bill went the right way, e.g.) or also the material character of the bill (meaning whether he can cheque what the bill itself says with the constituition).

I apologize for my lack of knowledge. But is it even possible for a british court to declare a law invalid because of violating the "consitituitional" principles. What safeguards are there.
Or are there none, since the british democracy worked anyway??

It couldn't be passed, because it would be struck down in the Lords as unconstitutional, and the Lords will have the backing of the courts and Europe.


A bill in violation of the constitution would even reach the Queen.

And yes it is possiblr for courts to declare a bill unconstitutional (although it goes by anouther name which escapes me)

The Head of State cannot refuse to sign anything, it is part of the constitution.

You do realise tha\t this is helping me? The current constitution is a mess, eliminating the monarch and bring in a codified constitution will help clear this all up.

As far as I can remember, there are safeguards.

Which are many and varied (my favorite cop out line).

Although you will have to bare with me, since I will need to dig out some long unused books.

:::

:::

They are good for so many reasons. England wouldn't be English, it's not right.
They have made one bad mistake, GIVING AWAY THE EMPIRE!!! :tantrum:
You could say that about every form of government.
The reason that a monarchy services is they have so many of the countries people behind them!
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.

They are good for so many reasons. England wouldn't be English, it's not right.

Finw, but she is also Queen of the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish.

And care to explain why the English wouldn't be English with a Foreign Monarchy?

They have made one bad mistake, GIVING AWAY THE EMPIRE!!! :tantrum:
You could say that about every form of government.
The reason that a monarchy services is they have so many of the countries people behind them!
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.

As I haver pointed out, the number of people who wholeheartedly suppoert the monarchy is surprisingly low.

And it is not because of that, it is because it is kept there power the constitution.

And the Empire wasn't just given back. Many colonies had to fight for their independence, and it was becoming unworkable to maintain it.

@Conceptualists,

very interesting indeed: this british system.

But if you remove monarchy you would bring the House of Lords in question as well. Since aristocracy depends on monarchy that would mean the House of Lords would need to be removed as well - that´s the logical consequence.
You would need a lot of changes. It would really be a revolution of the political system in Britain which developed through history.
And you would need to decide who should take over all the responsibilties which those instituition have. Well: you may even need a written constituition then? :wink:
That would mean a lot of changes. I don´t think that any of the major political parties really want that. I don´t think that is going to happen.

By the way: on a global level monarchy isn´t going down as expected a few decades ago. The last egyptian king said after his removal in 1953: In 50 yeas they are going to be only two kings left: the king in the card game and the king of England."
He is mistaken. Actually: some countries even reestablished monarchies like Spain or Kambodscha.

@ Kerbala:

The House of Lords has had many of its Hereidatry peers removed. Although I see nothing wrong with this, or the fact that it needs further reform (I started a thread on it yesterday, which no one replied to)

I realise that the political system needs a severe shake up.

And as I have already said, I am in favour of a codified constitution

You are write that no major political party wants that. As the changes needed will trim their power. No monarch = No Royal Perogative powers for the PM, so they would be devolved to parliament. A more representative second chamber would mean that it would be harder to get legitslation through. etc

It only shows how fundementally undemocratic Britain is. And many Brits complain about power hungry politicians, but don't support changes that would limit their power.

:::

:::

Conceptualists,

ay our brother nation Kerbala wrote :wink: I can not see a majority for those changes in the british public nor in the parties.
Regarding the second chamber: what do you want to do with it??
Get rid of it at all??? Elect it??? Making it a Senate like in the US or a chamber for local governments???
The fact that the Commons can pass laws and that the second chamber just has limitted veto power makes it very easy for the government to pass laws and push its policy. In countries with a powerful second chamber - like Germany- that can lead to a blocade for the government policy since it is possible that the opposition may seize power in the second chamber.

Conceptualists,

ay our brother nation Kerbala wrote :wink: I can not see a majority for those changes in the british public nor in the parties.
Regarding the second chamber: what do you want to do with it??
Get rid of it at all??? Elect it??? Making it a Senate like in the US or a chamber for local governments???
The fact that the Commons can pass laws and that the second chamber just has limitted veto power makes it very easy for the government to pass laws and push its policy. In countries with a powerful second chamber - like Germany- that can lead to a blocade for the government policy since it is possible that the opposition may seize power in the second chamber.

For my views on the second chamber try here (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=153671&highlight=)


NB: The House of Lords does not have veto power. I can hold up legitslation for 8 months (iirc), before sending it back to commons with a list of suggested ammendments. And Because of the Parliament Act, it can only do it twice.

I think the whole 'the english wouldn't be english' remark is referring to the point that was said earlier..that the English are identified, partly by the Royal Family!

Yay, God save the Queen!!

I think the whole 'the english wouldn't be english' remark is referring to the point that was said earlier..that the English are identified, partly by the Royal Family!

If the English want to be ruled over by the Queen, that is their own affair, but do we Scots, Welsh, Northern Irelanders & Channel Islanders have no say in the matter then?

Yay, God save the Queen!!

...and all that may frickin' sail in her...

There are two choices: Keep the Royals or pay big bucks to elect (or appoint) a President.

There are two choices: Keep the Royals or pay big bucks to elect (or appoint) a President.

You left out option 3 - "hang the last royal with the guts of the last bureaucrat".

There are two choices: Keep the Royals or pay big bucks to elect (or appoint) a President.

You left out option 3 - "hang the last royal with the guts of the last bureaucrat".

Is that Voltaire? (I have heard it, but who said it I forget)


But @ Thuthmose III.

Those aren't the choices.

The Royals.

The Constitutional Monarchy Association states that the civil list has been fixed at £7.9 million per year until 2011.

Somehow I doubt that a President will be paid that much. Even if you take into account of ex-Presidents pensions the cost does not approach that.

But the Monarchy cost more than just the Civil List. To take the cheapest cost that Monarchists cite (£37 million).

So it seems that we will be making huge savings, rather than paying "Big Bucks to elect a President."


NB: Do not try and say that France's Presidency cost a lot (as has been pointed out to me many times), because that it a political role, not a cerimonial role that most Republicans advocate. (And anyway, it is far cheaper than the Monarchy).

The British Monarchy has been around for almost 1,000 years. ....

Besides the Royal family pretty much pays for itself (their agricultural lands are extensive and there is no doubt they have other worthwhile investments) so it is not like they are a burden on the average Briton.

Now...a British Republic would cost the average Briton a lot of money (even more than one would in Australia). This is because Britain has a lot of royal insignias, public buildings etc all with royal conotations. ...

Britain has a rich heritage, and the Monarchy enhances that. The Queen does not exercise power in the way her predecessors could (under Victoria the sovereign became a constitutional monarch - s...

I believe that when William ascends to the throne, there will be a revival of interest in the royal family (positive not negative as in the tabloids). This will inevitably be good for Britain.

The British monarchy is usually traced back, in fact, to the "English" kings, under the House of Wessex, with the first king recognised as Egbert (802-39). This "line" included Alfred, the Great (871-99), Aethelred, the Unready (978-1016) and Edward, the Confessor (1042-66).

They were replaced by the Norman Line , initially under William I, the Conqueror (1066-87), and including Henry I, Beauclerc (1100-35).

They, in turn were replaced by the Plantagenet, Angevin Line , including
Richard I the Lionheart (1189-99), Edward I, Longshanks (1272-1307) and
Richard II (1377-99).

Next we have the Lancastrians, commencing with Edward IV (1461-70, 1471-83) and concluding with Richard 111.

The Tudors, having defeated Richard, then took over, commencing with
Henry VII, Tudor (1485-1509), then Henry V111, and concluding with Elizabeth I (1558-1603).

Next, the House of Stuart, with James I (1603-25) and Charles I (1625-49), who was deposed and executed in the English Civil wars.

Which, of course, ushered in the "Lord High Protector" , Oliver Cromwell, and his rather incompotent son Richard (known as Tumbledown Dick).

The "Restoration" meant that the Stuarts regained the throne under Charles II (1660-85), and his heir, James II (1685-8) who was overthrown by the reactionary Protestants, ushering in the House of Orange, with the ascension of William 111.

The Hanoverian were next, distant claimants to the throne, but the nearest Protestants. Commencing with George I (1714-27), including the "mad" George 111, and concluding with Victoria (1837-1901).

We next have the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, commencing with Edward VII (1901-10). This family changed their name during World War 1 (it really sounded too Germanic) to the House of Windsor.

So, in effect, the present line really has a very short history in comparison.

One may as well argue that the Plantagenets should be restored!

The present family are more of a drain on resources, particularly given the large "extended" family.

And, unfortunately, they tend to represent little other than a dysfunctional family, probably due to excessive in-breeding.

The "cost" of a republic would be considerably less than retaining this peculiar bunch.

The fact that they exercise no real power is an argument more in favour of removing them, than it is for retaining a figurehead.

And, of course, the current heir is Charles, not his son William.

Ooh I never noticed this post.

The British Monarchy has been around for almost 1,000 years. ....

How can that be if Britain has not existed for 1000 years?

And as pointed out by S-G, dynasties change quite a lot. In fact, when Elizabeth II dies, the Windsor dynasty will end.

Besides the Royal family pretty much pays for itself (their agricultural lands are extensive and there is no doubt they have other worthwhile investments) so it is not like they are a burden on the average Briton.

So that £37 million (min) comes from nowhere? They are a burden, especially if you consider some of their income isn't taxed.

Also, it is important to distinguish what is Crown Land and what is Privately owned land, whos landowner is a Royal. Crown Land is not owned by the individual.

Now...a British Republic would cost the average Briton a lot of money (even more than one would in Australia). This is because Britain has a lot of royal insignias, public buildings etc all with royal conotations. ...

I have already stated that the cost of a monarchy is huge in comparison to a Republic. I some how doubt that it will cost that much money that the country will never save in the long run.

Britain has a rich heritage, and the Monarchy enhances that. The Queen does not exercise power in the way her predecessors could (under Victoria the sovereign became a constitutional monarch - s...

How does the Monarchy enhange our heritage. This is a claim frequently used but never justified. And the fact that Elizabeth Windsor doesn't have power is not an arguement for monarchy, especially when put together with the fact that she and her family cost the tax payer millions.

I believe that when William ascends to the throne, there will be a revival of interest in the royal family (positive not negative as in the tabloids). This will inevitably be good for Britain.

How do you justify this?

And as mentioned before, it is a long time off.

The position of President is one facet of creating a Republic as I have mentioned previously.


Given that the Royals own each and every one of their estates, where would the President live? Inevitably, a Presidential Palace would be needed. The cost of which would more than likely approximately several hundred million pounds (possibly more - you know what these architects are like).

Also, as a Republic, Britain would have to remove all Royal pre-fixes from public buildings and government property. The cost in removing "royal" from the Royal Navy alone would be enormous.

Then of course, you have all your embassies around the world which will need to sort through with regards to the above.

The list goes on, but I am not one for lengthy posts.

...but I will point out on this use of France as an example of a costless Presidency...How many people died under Robespierre again?

France was forced to sell off the possessions of Louis XVI because they were broke.

People always try and compare the cost of becoming a Republic today, to becoming one several hundred years ago - ignoring of course how very different the world is today and what is involved just in paperwork alone.

The position of President is one facet of creating a Republic as I have mentioned previously.

Given that the Royals own each and every one of their estates, where would the President live? Inevitably, a Presidential Palace would be needed. The cost of which would more than likely approximately several hundred million pounds (possibly more - you know what these architects are like).

No they don't. A lot of it is Crown Land and belongs to the Crown not the individual. Which means that when the monarchy is abolished the Crown lands will become state lands.

Also, as a Republic, Britain would have to remove all Royal pre-fixes from public buildings and government property. The cost in removing "royal" from the Royal Navy alone would be enormous.

Yet invisible, as you have not even given an estimate, let alone provided information justifie the total cost.

Then of course, you have all your embassies around the world which will need to sort through with regards to the above.

The list goes on, but I am not one for lengthy posts.

...but I will point out on this use of France as an example of a costless Presidency...How many people died under Robespierre again?

Point to where I have advocated violent revolution? I am for a peaceful abolishing of the Monarchy, no need for a terror.

France was forced to sell off the possessions of Louis XVI because they were broke.

I'm sure I said not to compare the plans for a Republic with France because it is completely different.

*checks*

Seems I did :P

People always try and compare the cost of becoming a Republic today, to becoming one several hundred years ago - ignoring of course how very different the world is today and what is involved just in paperwork alone.

Non sequitur. No one on this thread has, you are making up arguements that are not only easy to combat, but also one no one has said.

I get rather irritated when a man who, say, has devoted his whole life to curing polio, or a woman who has spent her whole life tlooking after sick children whilst bringing up her own on a meager wage is honoured by a woman who is paid millions of pounds each year to wear nice dressews and welcome rich foreign people to her really big house that all the poor people pay for and has never done a decent days work in her life. Surely it should be the other way round? I'd be honoured if, say, James Lovelock or Stephen Fry or Lucien Frued honoured me. I mean, that means something. But to be honoured by a lazy old woman who keeps dogs? That's just wierd.

That's why I support a Ceremonial Presidency. It'd only be logical to accept an honour from someone who's done something. To have the support and recognition of, say, Mo Mowlam or Robert Winston- that's something to be proud of.

And for the British People to be able to choose who represents them- that's a good idea. Instead of some random selection of nature from a highly limited gene pool. What does that represent? Other than the fine British tradition of incest and privilege of birth, of course.

I mean, wouldn't it be better if the British People could say 'We are citizens of our own nation, not subjects to an unelected ruler. We choose [enter great citizen here] to represent us. This is [great citizen], and he/she shows the world everything that is great about our land!'

At the moment it's... 'We are the subjects of this woman. Who chose her? Nobody knows. But, erm, yeah, she wears nice hats! And has a pretty smile! Let's ignore her racist husband and odd family... skip over that bit... erm.. She wears nice hats! Hurrah!'


The other point is- I am British, yet I can not join the Police and enforce the law of my land, I cannot take up arms in war to defend my people, I cannot even support my community by joining the Fire Service, all because of my political viewpoints. If nothing else, I should be able to swear an oath to my community, my land and my people.

The Now Show this week (although it's a repeat from two years ago) explains it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbc7/listenagain/monday/rams/0800.ram

You left out option 3 - "hang the last royal with the guts of the last bureaucrat".

Is that Voltaire? (I have heard it, but who said it I forget)

In essence: it is a deliberate misquotation of his "may the last king be strangled with the guts of the last priest". Historical precedent allows us the freedom to alter it to suit cicrcumstances as people have been doing so for several hundred years.

The position of President is one facet of creating a Republic as I have mentioned previously.

Given that the Royals own each and every one of their estates, where would the President live? Inevitably, a Presidential Palace would be needed. The cost of which would more than likely approximately several hundred million pounds (possibly more - you know what these architects are like).

No they don't. A lot of it is Crown Land and belongs to the Crown not the individual. Which means that when the monarchy is abolished the Crown lands will become state lands.

Also, as a Republic, Britain would have to remove all Royal pre-fixes from public buildings and government property. The cost in removing "royal" from the Royal Navy alone would be enormous.

Yet invisible, as you have not even given an estimate, let alone provided information justifie the total cost.

Then of course, you have all your embassies around the world which will need to sort through with regards to the above.

The list goes on, but I am not one for lengthy posts.

...but I will point out on this use of France as an example of a costless Presidency...How many people died under Robespierre again?

Point to where I have advocated violent revolution? I am for a peaceful abolishing of the Monarchy, no need for a terror.

France was forced to sell off the possessions of Louis XVI because they were broke.

I'm sure I said not to compare the plans for a Republic with France because it is completely different.

*checks*

Seems I did :P

People always try and compare the cost of becoming a Republic today, to becoming one several hundred years ago - ignoring of course how very different the world is today and what is involved just in paperwork alone.

Non sequitur. No one on this thread has, you are making up arguements that are not only easy to combat, but also one no one has said.

No...the land currently occupied by the Royal family, is in fact owned by them (for many hundreds of years I might add). Therefore, they would retain their palaces and estates if Britain were to become a Republic.

Have you any idea as to how large the Royal Navy actually is? The size of the Navy speaks for the size of the costs.

I never suggested you were advocating "violent revolution". I was merely drawing on an example of past formations of Republics and the "costs" involved. While today these costs would not be human lives, the monetary cost is enormous. You simply have no idea how extensive and far reaching the Monarchy is do you?

To reform the embassies of the United Kingdom alone would cost the British taxpayer an arm and a leg.

It is interesting to hear Republicans preach how cheap a President would be, when they only state the salary involved. Republicans tend to ignore the bigger costs involved in forming a Presidency (remembering of course that the President is one man of a much greater organisation).

If we are to go by the costs of maintaining the US presidency, one might consider avoiding the Republican debate. To keep Air-Force 1 in the air, it costs the American taxpayer $56,800 per hour. That doesn't include maintenance costs, or the transport planes which are used to carry the Presidential motorcade etc.

As memory serves, the Queen of England actually hires out a Boeing 747 when she needs to fly. A far sight cheaper than having a plane of her own (yes I know about the Royal Yacht...but that was primarily funded by the Royals - ditched because of the increasing expense to them and taxpayer reluctance to foot the bill).

The position of President is one facet of creating a Republic as I have mentioned previously.

Given that the Royals own each and every one of their estates, where would the President live? Inevitably, a Presidential Palace would be needed. The cost of which would more than likely approximately several hundred million pounds (possibly more - you know what these architects are like).

No they don't. A lot of it is Crown Land and belongs to the Crown not the individual. Which means that when the monarchy is abolished the Crown lands will become state lands.

Also, as a Republic, Britain would have to remove all Royal pre-fixes from public buildings and government property. The cost in removing "royal" from the Royal Navy alone would be enormous.

Yet invisible, as you have not even given an estimate, let alone provided information justifie the total cost.

Then of course, you have all your embassies around the world which will need to sort through with regards to the above.

The list goes on, but I am not one for lengthy posts.

...but I will point out on this use of France as an example of a costless Presidency...How many people died under Robespierre again?

Point to where I have advocated violent revolution? I am for a peaceful abolishing of the Monarchy, no need for a terror.

France was forced to sell off the possessions of Louis XVI because they were broke.

I'm sure I said not to compare the plans for a Republic with France because it is completely different.

*checks*

Seems I did :P

People always try and compare the cost of becoming a Republic today, to becoming one several hundred years ago - ignoring of course how very different the world is today and what is involved just in paperwork alone.

Non sequitur. No one on this thread has, you are making up arguements that are not only easy to combat, but also one no one has said.

No...the land currently occupied by the Royal family, is in fact owned by them (for many hundreds of years I might add). Therefore, they would retain their palaces and estates if Britain were to become a Republic.

Have you any idea as to how large the Royal Navy actually is? The size of the Navy speaks for the size of the costs.

I never suggested you were advocating "violent revolution". I was merely drawing on an example of past formations of Republics and the "costs" involved. While today these costs would not be human lives, the monetary cost is enormous. You simply have no idea how extensive and far reaching the Monarchy is do you?

To reform the embassies of the United Kingdom alone would cost the British taxpayer an arm and a leg.

It is interesting to hear Republicans preach how cheap a President would be, when they only state the salary involved. Republicans tend to ignore the bigger costs involved in forming a Presidency (remembering of course that the President is one man of a much greater organisation).

If we are to go by the costs of maintaining the US presidency, one might consider avoiding the Republican debate. To keep Air-Force 1 in the air, it costs the American taxpayer $56,800 per hour. That doesn't include maintenance costs, or the transport planes which are used to carry the Presidential motorcade etc.

As memory serves, the Queen of England actually hires out a Boeing 747 when she needs to fly. A far sight cheaper than having a plane of her own (yes I know about the Royal Yacht...but that was primarily funded by the Royals - ditched because of the increasing expense to them and taxpayer reluctance to foot the bill).

The position of President is one facet of creating a Republic as I have mentioned previously.

Given that the Royals own each and every one of their estates, where would the President live? Inevitably, a Presidential Palace would be needed. The cost of which would more than likely approximately several hundred million pounds (possibly more - you know what these architects are like).

No they don't. A lot of it is Crown Land and belongs to the Crown not the individual. Which means that when the monarchy is abolished the Crown lands will become state lands.

Also, as a Republic, Britain would have to remove all Royal pre-fixes from public buildings and government property. The cost in removing "royal" from the Royal Navy alone would be enormous.

Yet invisible, as you have not even given an estimate, let alone provided information justifie the total cost.

Then of course, you have all your embassies around the world which will need to sort through with regards to the above.

The list goes on, but I am not one for lengthy posts.

...but I will point out on this use of France as an example of a costless Presidency...How many people died under Robespierre again?

Point to where I have advocated violent revolution? I am for a peaceful abolishing of the Monarchy, no need for a terror.

France was forced to sell off the possessions of Louis XVI because they were broke.

I'm sure I said not to compare the plans for a Republic with France because it is completely different.

*checks*

Seems I did :P

People always try and compare the cost of becoming a Republic today, to becoming one several hundred years ago - ignoring of course how very different the world is today and what is involved just in paperwork alone.

Non sequitur. No one on this thread has, you are making up arguements that are not only easy to combat, but also one no one has said.

No...the land currently occupied by the Royal family, is in fact owned by them (for many hundreds of years I might add). Therefore, they would retain their palaces and estates if Britain were to become a Republic.

Have you any idea as to how large the Royal Navy actually is? The size of the Navy speaks for the size of the costs.

I never suggested you were advocating "violent revolution". I was merely drawing on an example of past formations of Republics and the "costs" involved. While today these costs would not be human lives, the monetary cost is enormous. You simply have no idea how extensive and far reaching the Monarchy is do you?

To reform the embassies of the United Kingdom alone would cost the British taxpayer an arm and a leg.

It is interesting to hear Republicans preach how cheap a President would be, when they only state the salary involved. Republicans tend to ignore the bigger costs involved in forming a Presidency (remembering of course that the President is one man of a much greater organisation).

If we are to go by the costs of maintaining the US presidency, one might consider avoiding the Republican debate. To keep Air-Force 1 in the air, it costs the American taxpayer $56,800 per hour. That doesn't include maintenance costs, or the transport planes which are used to carry the Presidential motorcade etc.

As memory serves, the Queen of England actually hires out a Boeing 747 when she needs to fly. A far sight cheaper than having a plane of her own (yes I know about the Royal Yacht...but that was primarily funded by the Royals - ditched because of the increasing expense to them and taxpayer reluctance to foot the bill).

There are two choices: Keep the Royals or pay big bucks to elect (or appoint) a President.

Are you seriously suggesting that becoming a republic and electing a president would be less cost-effective than maintaining an entire family of "royalty" - and remember it is not just Phil and Liz and their kiddies - but cousins, second cousins, etc etc. And lets be honest, not a one of them comes cheap, or represents anything like value for money.

The monetary arguments seems pretty silly to me :(
From both sides by the way.
It is not a question of a few pounds one way or the other.
It is the question what form of government Britain wants to have and how it defines itself.
The monarchy has a long tradition. Britain has become what it is today because of it. The monarchic system ob Britain was able to reform and accept parlamentarism. That´s why the british monarchy survived in contrast to that of France and Russia for example.
Since that is the case I don´t see a reason for such a drastic change which would after all require a dramatic and drastic changes of the current political system of Britain. Not only the House of Lords would be brought in question - since aristocracy depends on monarchy - but also a lot of the state symbols.
What would happend to all those palaces? You would need a new constituition to determine the roll of a future president (he could have a representative role like a monarch - but why change for that if you have the original). And you would also need a new national anthem.
That is the question: and not whether one or the other options may cost a few pounds more or less: that´s ridiculous. It is a question how Britain defines itself.
I - as a foreigner - would like to see the British monarchy to stay. But it is your choice, of course.
I do however see no majority in Britain for such a change anyway.

No...the land currently occupied by the Royal family, is in fact owned by them (for many hundreds of years I might add). Therefore, they would retain their palaces and estates if Britain were to become a Republic.

No it isn't, it is Crown land, not the land of individuals. If it was it couldn't have stayed that way for hundreds of years ;)

Have you any idea as to how large the Royal Navy actually is? The size of the Navy speaks for the size of the costs.

Still, give me an estimate, and a validation would help a lot.

I never suggested you were advocating "violent revolution". I was merely drawing on an example of past formations of Republics and the "costs" involved. While today these costs would not be human lives, the monetary cost is enormous. You simply have no idea how extensive and far reaching the Monarchy is do you?

Then why refer to Robespierre and the Terror?

I somehow doubt that if the Monarchy was abolished, the other nations of Europe would attack us, like what happened to France at the end of the 18th century.

Do you, you have failed to produce any evidence yet.

To reform the embassies of the United Kingdom alone would cost the British taxpayer an arm and a leg.

Validate this please.

Any way I am not a Republican from a monetary point of view.

It is interesting to hear Republicans preach how cheap a President would be, when they only state the salary involved. Republicans tend to ignore the bigger costs involved in forming a Presidency (remembering of course that the President is one man of a much greater organisation).

It would still be less a monarch. Both in monatery terms and organisational.

If we are to go by the costs of maintaining the US presidency, one might consider avoiding the Republican debate. To keep Air-Force 1 in the air, it costs the American taxpayer $56,800 per hour. That doesn't include maintenance costs, or the transport planes which are used to carry the Presidential motorcade etc.

Difference. I'm advocating a cerimonial Presidency, the Us presidency is political.

As memory serves, the Queen of England actually hires out a Boeing 747 when she needs to fly.

And the President of Britain can do the same. It is not as if there is a UN charter saying that Presidents need Private Jets.


I will reiterate, I'm not a Republican because I think it would same a few quid. But because I think Britain should be more democratic.

The monetary arguments seems pretty silly to me :(
From both sides by the way.
It is not a question of a few pounds one way or the other.
It is the question what form of government Britain wants to have and how it defines itself.

Too right.

The monarchy has a long tradition. Britain has become what it is today because of it.

Really? I suppose it was the Monarchy who single handedly fought all the wars to expand the Empire. That introduced the welfare state. And that they are responsible for all the culture that has flowed from Britain.

Britain has become what it is today because of the British, not the monarchy. Who are foreign, and refuse to assimilate ;) (I only use this arguement because many arch-monarchist tend to not like immigrants for this reason).

Anyway, slavery has a long tradition. But I don't here people using that as justification.

The monarchic system ob Britain was able to reform and accept parlamentarism. That´s why the british monarchy survived in contrast to that of France and Russia for example.

Just because it is slightly brighter than the other monarchies (or had better advisors), doesn't mean it should continue.

Since that is the case I don´t see a reason for such a drastic change which would after all require a dramatic and drastic changes of the current political system of Britain. Not only the House of Lords would be brought in question - since aristocracy depends on monarchy - but also a lot of the state symbols.

I have already posted a link on what I think should happen to the second chamber (again I will say, there are few aristocrats in their anyway, ever since the recent Lords Reform Act which chucked most of them out).

What would happend to all those palaces?

They could be fully opened up to tourists and the general public. Like the Palace of Versaille in France.

You would need a new constituition to determine the roll of a future president (he could have a representative role like a monarch - but why change for that if you have the original).

I have already said that I think Britain should have a constitution. We should change it, even though we the 'original,' because I want my country to be a democracy.

And you would also need a new national anthem.

Damn right we need a new national anthem. Not only does it sound as if a GCSE student wrote, no one knows the words anyway.

That is the question: and not whether one or the other options may cost a few pounds more or less: that´s ridiculous. It is a question how Britain defines itself.
I - as a foreigner - would like to see the British monarchy to stay. But it is your choice, of course.

If you like the monarchy so much then you can declare you house a country and they can rule you if you like ;)

But you are right it is our choice. And as long as you respect that. I, personally, respect you.

I do however see no majority in Britain for such a change anyway.

You are unfortunately right. But I think soon that Britain will be a democracy.

In a constructed language I made:

Kiŋoé n‡hãùk!'ákxoé ãó gk!’óbídt’á.--Kings are only good for the purpose of defeating them.

Nuff said.

-----------------------------------------
"The [Nazi] Party is based on the fundamental principle of private
property" - Adolf Hitler (What does that say about capitalism?)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

In a constructed language I made:

Kiŋoé n‡hãùk!'ákxoé ãó gk!’óbídt’á.--Kings are only good for the purpose of defeating them.

Nuff said.



Is there a course in this language?

First of all, I am not British and therefore would not dream of even trying to provide exact costings of a British Republic. However, by simple deduction and some commonsense, one can understand that to remove the Royal insignias from public buildings alone would be an enormously costly exercise.

This is NationStates and not a real political arena. If it were real, then I would take the time to bombard you with so much evidence that I wouldn't even be able to see your white flag after 50 seconds.

Plus...I doubt the MODS would appreciate a 1 mile post :lol:

...just use your head...changing the system of government in the modern world (high-tech) costs money - a lot of money.

@Thuthmose III,

you are right that there would be costs for the change. But that would be costs of transition. They would be there for a few years. They wouldn´t be permanent costs.

This is a pretty weak argument for it :? I would say it is a non-starter.
If that is the only argument for keeping the monarchy that would mean the end of it. :(

But there are many valid arguments for monarchy :)
One is that the British systems of monarchy works very well: why replacing a good system which is working???
Just keep it.

The other point is- I am British, yet I can not join the Police and enforce the law of my land, I cannot take up arms in war to defend my people, I cannot even support my community by joining the Fire Service, all because of my political viewpoints. If nothing else, I should be able to swear an oath to my community, my land and my people.

You're probably not banned becuase of your political beliefs, more likely because of how you expressed them. Did it involve petrol bombs or graffitti? :D

There is one simple reason why Britain cannot give up it's monarchy: it would make the French, Belgians, Irish and Germans MUCH too happy.

What people dont understand is our Royal Family (im British and proud of it) is unlike any other in thw world. The monarch (HM Queen Elizabeth II) is out head of state and she is the one that makes all the important decisions. Tony Blair is the head of HER Goverment not HIS, it is the Queen who invited him to become Prime Minister after the General Election to run HER Goverment. Nothing that the Goverment come up with can become Law without Royal Assent. People wont believe it but she does more than just stand on show and visit people she also has to carry out all the Political work of a Head of State. The only difference is she is of Royal Blood and has a Privy Council to advice her upon matters of State. It was the Royal Family that made Britain great and i along with millions of British are proud to live under there rule.

@Spanish Biru


"There is one simple reason why Britain cannot give up it's monarchy: it would make the French, Belgians, Irish and Germans MUCH too happy."

You must be joking. The Belgians have a monarchy themselves and in Germany the British royal family is very popular. Since there is no royal family in the country itself the Germans would miss the stories in the yellow press about them tremendously.
Bye the way: due to the fact that ALL royal families of Europe are related to each other. The monarchy in Britain is one thing that unites Britain with many other european countries.
And Britain is an european country, although you may or may not like it. :wink:

What people dont understand is our Royal Family (im British and proud of it) is unlike any other in thw world. The monarch (HM Queen Elizabeth II) is out head of state and she is the one that makes all the important decisions. Tony Blair is the head of HER Goverment not HIS, it is the Queen who invited him to become Prime Minister after the General Election to run HER Goverment. Nothing that the Goverment come up with can become Law without Royal Assent. People wont believe it but she does more than just stand on show and visit people she also has to carry out all the Political work of a Head of State. The only difference is she is of Royal Blood and has a Privy Council to advice her upon matters of State. It was the Royal Family that made Britain great and i along with millions of British are proud to live under there rule.

There are, I admit, advantages in having a monarchy. Monarchs are good national symbols; they are a useful focus for the loyalties of institutions like the Army and the Civil Service; and are picturesque and draw in tourists. On the negative side, they perpetuate the myth of superiority by birth and are hugely expensive. Individual members of a royal family can be deeply embarrassing in their words and deeds (Philip, Charles, and Edward leap inelegantly to mind); and the royals themselves are forced to live highly public lives with no chance of retirement or guarantee of even momentary privacy. We are all constrained by the circumstances of our birth; to be born royal is to be condemned to a life without honest friendship.

Even politically, the British royal family today has no function. In theory they have to agree with government proposals before they become law, but Royal Assent is never withheld. The Queen knows which side her bread is buttered on (although she probably doesn't know how it's done): if she attempted to interfere with the intentions of a democratically elected government then Royal Assent would be disposed of so fast it would make your head spin, just as the House of Lords was swiftly neutered when it tried to meddle with the activities on the Commons in the early 20th century. So, currently, we have a hugely expensive rubber stamp that can act as a useful symbol of national loyalties and attracts tourists, but which is also frequently a national and international embarrassment, an unfair imposition on those unfortunate enough to be a part of it, and the lynchpin of the myth that some people are born better than others. We have to rationalise the situation and seek a sensible solution. I suggest that we in the 21st-century UK dispose of the Windsors and, to maintain some sense of continuity, appoint a horse.

Think about it: people the world over like horses; they have excellent profiles for use on stamps and coins; they can be kept cheaply in a nice big field and trotted out on state occasions; Red Rum and Desert Orchid have shown that horses are capable of opening supermarkets and community centres; and every 25 years or so they die, and we can all have an extra day off work. We would, finally, be able to say with pride that Britain is a modern, constitutional Hippocracy.

right then some facts and thoughts.

Mr Conceptioalis (sic) a while back you said a law baning political parties or somthing wouldnt get through because of the European Human Rights Act. Well this can be repealed by a simple act of Parliament. You then said the House of Lords would stop any nasty pieces of legislation but then yourself pointed out the Parliament Act which allows the HofC to force through legislation.

The head of the monarchy is imune from proesecution, but others aren't, the Prince of Wales did appear before Court as a witness in the early 1900's. Foriegn diplomats have favourable treatment from the law as well so the Monachy is not the only example of not everyone being equal in the eyes of the law.

Benifits of the Royal family are. Masses of charity work. Prince of Wales is patron of 100's of charities such as the Princes Trust. Prince William supports many of the charities his mother did, and the other memebers of the Royal family also contribute most of there time to charity work.

As for forieng travel the Queen actualy has use of the Royal Flight, mantained by the RAF it is a Bae146, which is actually fairly small.

In diplomatic circles we also have advantages. State visits for example, being greated by the queen, all helps oil the diplomatic wheels. As does the fact we can give knighthoods to our important diplomats. The General Secerety of NATO was British ( im fairly certain he has now stood down and been replaced by a Dutchman) and was given a knighthood which does undoubtedly increase prestiege and again help oil the diplomatic wheels.

You point to an elected ceramonial President but seeing as how low turnout is for elections that do matter like those for the European Parliament, how many would vote for a ceromonial President? Then you are left with many people having a head of state they havnt voted for and feel no conection with, which is what your trying to change so you would end up changing nothing. You would also politce the role as how else would candidates distinguse themselves from each other?

Finally if we take the estimate of £37 million the monachy costs us each just over 50p a year. Now if thats not good value i don't know what is.

right then some facts and thoughts.

Mr Conceptioalis (sic) a while back you said a law baning political parties or somthing wouldnt get through because of the European Human Rights Act. Well this can be repealed by a simple act of Parliament. You then said the House of Lords would stop any nasty pieces of legislation but then yourself pointed out the Parliament Act which allows the HofC to force through legislation.

The ECHR cannot be undone because it is far too entrenced in modern Britain. To remove the ECHR, Britain would need to untie all links with Europe and undo all treaties and decisions made with it. So a simple act of Parliament cannot be repealed with a simple act of Parliament.

How is the Parliament act nasty exactly? It takes power out of the hands of those with no right to it.

The head of the monarchy is imune from proesecution, but others aren't, the Prince of Wales did appear before Court as a witness in the early 1900's. Foriegn diplomats have favourable treatment from the law as well so the Monachy is not the only example of not everyone being equal in the eyes of the law.

You are not comparing like with like. Just because diplomats have diplomatic immunity does not mean that the Queen should be protected from the Law.

Benifits of the Royal family are. Masses of charity work. Prince of Wales is patron of 100's of charities such as the Princes Trust. Prince William supports many of the charities his mother did, and the other memebers of the Royal family also contribute most of there time to charity work.

Charity is not a reason to being a king or queen. Many private individuals give a lot (and some a lot more) to charity. Furthermore, if charity is so important, why don't we abolish the monarchy so that they can spend more time doing charity work?

As for forieng travel the Queen actualy has use of the Royal Flight, mantained by the RAF it is a Bae146, which is actually fairly small.

In diplomatic circles we also have advantages. State visits for example, being greated by the queen, all helps oil the diplomatic wheels. As does the fact we can give knighthoods to our important diplomats. The General Secerety of NATO was British ( im fairly certain he has now stood down and been replaced by a Dutchman) and was given a knighthood which does undoubtedly increase prestiege and again help oil the diplomatic wheels.

We can still have gongs without a monarchy. Doesn't France have the Legion of Honour?

You have not explained how being greeted by the queen is better than being greeted by a true representative of the people.

You point to an elected ceramonial President but seeing as how low turnout is for elections that do matter like those for the European Parliament, how many would vote for a ceromonial President?

As many who would want to. Having the official support of the few is better than none.

Then you are left with many people having a head of state they havnt voted for

As apposed to having a head of state that no one has voted for?

By that logic we may as well have a dictatorship.

and feel no conection with

Tell me, how can the ordinary citizen/subject have a connection with an aristocrat who lives the life of riley?


, which is what your trying to change so you would end up changing nothing.

Except a fundemental way the country is run?

If you believe that it would change nothing then why not allow it?

You would also politce the role as how else would candidates distinguse themselves from each other?

I assume you mean 'politisize' (that is spelt wrong too, I know). How would a cerimonial Presidency be politisized, since no party could get anything from it?

Also, isn't it fairly obvious how the candidates would distinguish themselves? We do live in an era of mass media.


Finally if we take the estimate of £37 million the monachy costs us each just over 50p a year. Now if thats not good value i don't know what is.

Again I am not a Republican because of monetary issues. But since a president would cost less then that, it seems like better value.

First of all, I am not British and therefore would not dream of even trying to provide exact costings of a British Republic. However, by simple deduction and some commonsense, one can understand that to remove the Royal insignias from public buildings alone would be an enormously costly exercise.

Is there some gene that stops none Brits providing estimates? :?

This is NationStates and not a real political arena. If it were real, then I would take the time to bombard you with so much evidence that I wouldn't even be able to see your white flag after 50 seconds.

Nice excuse :roll:

Plus...I doubt the MODS would appreciate a 1 mile post :lol:

Try it. The most will get is a "don't do that again" warning. Nothing serious ;)

...just use your head...changing the system of government in the modern world (high-tech) costs money - a lot of money.

Again, I am not a republican for monetary reasons (I think I should just make that my signature).

There is no greater crime than privilege without doing anything to earn it. The royal family lives in extreme wealth while some people in Britain are poor.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Well, they are rich for a reason. THEY ARE DESCENDANTS OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAD ONCED CONTROLED A QUARTER OF THE EARTH! The queen is the descendant of the kings that ruled the british empire.so, they have to keep her as a symbol. obviously, she does hold any political power. she is just the descendant of the british kings, so leave them alone.

The Germans ruled a quarter of the earth????

As for the Windsors.....I think they ought to suffer the same fate as the Romanovs.

As for the Windsors.....I think they ought to suffer the same fate as the Romanovs.

Meh, I'm quite happy to let them retire to one of their private estates. I mean it is not as if they will be straped for cash.

As for the Windsors.....I think they ought to suffer the same fate as the Romanovs.

Meh, I'm quite happy to let them retire to one of their private estates. I mean it is not as if they will be straped for cash.

No. That cash...and those estates belong to the people.

The royals are parasites.

As for the Windsors.....I think they ought to suffer the same fate as the Romanovs.

Meh, I'm quite happy to let them retire to one of their private estates. I mean it is not as if they will be straped for cash.

No. That cash...and those estates belong to the people.

The royals are parasites.

Well, I reckoned that they have a load siphoned to a Swiss account occasionally.

As for the Windsors.....I think they ought to suffer the same fate as the Romanovs.

Meh, I'm quite happy to let them retire to one of their private estates. I mean it is not as if they will be straped for cash.

No. That cash...and those estates belong to the people.

The royals are parasites.

Well, I reckoned that they have a load siphoned to a Swiss account occasionally.

I doubt you are wrong....

After all it was only a couple of years ago that they started paying taxes...

@
"There is one simple reason why Britain cannot give up it's monarchy: it would make the French, Belgians, Irish and Germans MUCH too happy."

You must be joking. The Belgians have a monarchy themselves and in Germany the British royal family is very popular. Since there is no royal family in the country itself the Germans would miss the stories in the yellow press about them tremendously.

I was joking, but I was simply making the point that after the EU has (if it gets its' way) removed the British pound and House of Lords, how long would it be before they turned on the Royals? If the British did away with them on their own then it would be one less job for the EU.

BTW- Why hasn't the surname of the Royal family changed to Mountebatten, as that's the name of the Queen's husband. I thought they always took the husband's name in the Royal family

@Spanish Biru

"I was simply making the point that after the EU has (if it gets its' way) removed the British pound and House of Lords, how long would it be before they turned on the Royals? If the British did away with them on their own then it would be one less job for the EU."

:? You really seem to suffer from conspiracy theories. :( :( :(
The decision to reform the House of Lords has NOTHING TO DO with the EU. You have to complain to your prime minister about that - if there is anything to complain about (i don´t know I´m not British).
Regarding the Euro: Britain has negotiated an OPTING-OUT CLAUSE. It is YOUR decision whether your join or not. Your prime minister has declared that he is going to ask for a REFERENDUM of the british people when HE thinks the time is right for that step.

Regarding the EU. I can understand many of the frustrations with it.
But the question is how to react towards it. The UK joined the EC in 1973, more than twenty years after the first european economic contracts were signed (first the coal and steel contract of 1951 between France, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg, Italy, Germany who also signed the so called Roman treaty in 1957 for the ECC (European economic communits - later EC, today reffered to as EU).
It is clear that at that period France and the frensh language was dominating this instituation. Britain by staying out allowed French dominance. And after the joined this dominance was already established.
I think today is an opportunity for Britain to increase its influence on Europe. English is today the dominating language inside the EU burocracy (believe it or not) before French. New countries have joined who rather prefer the anglo-saxon modell than the french modell, as well as the British foreign and security policy (transatlantic alliance). I just mention the letter of the eight (three East Europeans - Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary) and the letter of the ten (ten other East Europeans).
I just wonder: those Britain wants to stay out for another twenty years and then - with great distaste feel forced - to join the closer integration of the EU like in 1973 the EC or whether it wants to participate in this process and sees itself in the centre of Europe. Blair tends to see it rather like I see it, but many in Britain differently. Leaders must lead. He did it during the Iraq issue and he now seems to show the same courage in respect to EU policy. I welcome that. I hope he wins over public opinion in Britain, however I doubt it.

First of all, I am not British and therefore would not dream of even trying to provide exact costings of a British Republic. However, by simple deduction and some commonsense, one can understand that to remove the Royal insignias from public buildings alone would be an enormously costly exercise.

Is there some gene that stops none Brits providing estimates? :?

This is NationStates and not a real political arena. If it were real, then I would take the time to bombard you with so much evidence that I wouldn't even be able to see your white flag after 50 seconds.

Nice excuse :roll:

Plus...I doubt the MODS would appreciate a 1 mile post :lol:

Try it. The most will get is a "don't do that again" warning. Nothing serious ;)

...just use your head...changing the system of government in the modern world (high-tech) costs money - a lot of money.

Again, I am not a republican for monetary reasons (I think I should just make that my signature).

Not being British would make it very difficult for me to take the time to get exact figures (in pounds). That, and the details I need to prove what I already know to be true, are not on the internet. Since I have issues here to deal with, I cannot be bothered trying to prove commonsense.

So it doesn't matter that a Republic would cost too much because you are not a Republican for "monetary reasons". Geez, tell that one to the British taxpayer - 3rd highest taxed in the world.

Not being British would make it very difficult for me to take the time to get exact figures (in pounds). That, and the details I need to prove what I already know to be true, are not on the internet. Since I have issues here to deal with, I cannot be bothered trying to prove commonsense.

So it doesn't matter that a Republic would cost too much because you are not a Republican for "monetary reasons". Geez, tell that one to the British taxpayer - 3rd highest taxed in the world.

So, you can claim that the cost of becoming a republic would be exhorbitant, but you have no way of obtaining any real figures - beyond your own "commonsense". One may be tempted to put a value on your "commonsense", even if it could not be proven, or if one could "not be bothered" to prove it.

Your claim that the British are the 3rd highest taxed in the world, could, of course be used as evidence that a monarchical system is not cost-effective. An amusing claim, particularly if I can then claim that I do not need to "prove" it as it is "commonsense".

Not being British would make it very difficult for me to take the time to get exact figures (in pounds). That, and the details I need to prove what I already know to be true, are not on the internet. Since I have issues here to deal with, I cannot be bothered trying to prove commonsense.

So it doesn't matter that a Republic would cost too much because you are not a Republican for "monetary reasons". Geez, tell that one to the British taxpayer - 3rd highest taxed in the world.

So, you can claim that the cost of becoming a republic would be exhorbitant, but you have no way of obtaining any real figures - beyond your own "commonsense". One may be tempted to put a value on your "commonsense", even if it could not be proven, or if one could "not be bothered" to prove it.

Your claim that the British are the 3rd highest taxed in the world, could, of course be used as evidence that a monarchical system is not cost-effective. An amusing claim, particularly if I can then claim that I do not need to "prove" it as it is "commonsense".

1. Taxes are not set by the Queen. If you have a problem with taxation, then take it up with Tony Blair. Trying to link Her Majesty to high taxes being imposed upon people is ludicrous.

2. Naturally, one can state something would cost a lot without knowing its exact price tag. For example, I can say that a mercedes is a luxury car and therefore will cost quite a lot of money. Sometimes, commonsense helps us to see things for what they really are.

Understanding that a British Republic involves removing the Royal presense in public life (as a political and governmental statement), commonsense tells us that the costs involved are substantial. Previous examples I have used regarding the Royal Navy and Embassies demonstrate this commonsense.

Perhaps then, since it is clear you do not believe a British republic would cost a lot, you would be so generous as to provide what you feel the "real" costings are.

All I know is that outlandish renovations of palaces and royal commodities such as personal trains all paid by the government does sound ridiculous! I’d be a very grumpy taxpayer if I had to pay for the luxuries of the queen while struggling to pay for my own home and crappy public transportation.

Think about the word figureheads. Then imagine the Royal Family as figureheads. Then realize they are on par with national symbols such as flags, animals, and plants. God save the Queen!

-That damn Yankee

ps. The British are highly taxed because they are Socialist. Ie. Public funds pay for a lot of free/subsidized public services.

Perhaps then, since it is clear you do not believe a British republic would cost a lot, you would be so generous as to provide what you feel the "real" costings are.

It is you who offer the supposed cost as the argument against a republic. You have already admitted that you are unable to substantiate this claim. It is not up to me to provide figures in this instance. You made the claim, where is your evidence?

One can only wonder how less wealth nations ever managed to nake the change to a republic without bankrupting themselves. :roll:

Perhaps then, since it is clear you do not believe a British republic would cost a lot, you would be so generous as to provide what you feel the "real" costings are.

It is you who offer the supposed cost as the argument against a republic. You have already admitted that you are unable to substantiate this claim. It is not up to me to provide figures in this instance. You made the claim, where is your evidence?

One can only wonder how less wealthy nations ever managed to make the change to a republic without bankrupting themselves. :roll:

All I know is that outlandish renovations of palaces and royal commodities such as personal trains all paid by the government does sound ridiculous! I’d be a very grumpy taxpayer if I had to pay for the luxuries of the queen while struggling to pay for my own home and crappy public transportation.

The British taxpayer does not pay for palace renovations. The Royal family pays for expenses such as those.

Now, in the USA, the American taxpayer pays for all renovations to the White House, Residence and Camp David (I recall reading about a huge uproar back in the 60's when Jackie Kennedy decided to do a huge refit of the Residence - she had expensive taste). They also pay $56,800 an hour to keep Air-Force 1 in the air (and all acompanying cargo planes which are an added expense)...those are just a few examples. The list is probably also much bigger with Bush in the White House.

Perhaps then, since it is clear you do not believe a British republic would cost a lot, you would be so generous as to provide what you feel the "real" costings are.

It is you who offer the supposed cost as the argument against a republic. You have already admitted that you are unable to substantiate this claim. It is not up to me to provide figures in this instance. You made the claim, where is your evidence?

One can only wonder how less wealth nations ever managed to nake the change to a republic without bankrupting themselves. :roll:

Yes I wonder...when they became republics hundreds of years ago...at a time where nations did not have embassies, mountains of paperwork, and were not in a time of mass media or telecommunications.

That, and many republics were born out of turmoil...with the Royal Family dead or imprisoned.

Many of the countries...e.g the USA were young and the cost was minimal (although for the time, rather expensive). France, as mentioned earlier was a total mess and Russia never recovered.

As for those African nations becoming Republics, many are born out of bloodshed today - that and the costs are minimised by the fact that they are not as advanced as a nation like Britain. Their governments are centralised - much like the US government when their Republic came about. Britain, on the other hand has a government that is far reaching. For Britain to become a Republic in the modern age, it would be as costly as the USA reverting to a Monarchy.

Many nations which have become Republics recently like India and Pakistan have huge populations which are very poor. Although ex colonies, they were never really Europeanised.

Britain, however, was once the centre of an Empire. It is a wealthy land, with many people and a rich heritage that is linked to the Royals. Their government of today was born from the reign of Queen Victoria, and the costs involved in becoming a Republic will be enormous.

All I know is that outlandish renovations of palaces and royal commodities such as personal trains all paid by the government does sound ridiculous! I’d be a very grumpy taxpayer if I had to pay for the luxuries of the queen while struggling to pay for my own home and crappy public transportation.

The British taxpayer does not pay for palace renovations. The Royal family pays for expenses such as those.

nope. YOU ARE WRONG. ( unless u can give me a credible source that proves otherwise) Anyway..

A modern democracy is essential for promoting equality and inclusiveness. Citizens of Britain should have right to elect anyone who holds a position in public office.

The government and ultimately the citizens of Britain must stop pampering the Un-elected and archaic monarchy.

The whole “Britain is not Britain without the monarchy” is false. What makes Britain unique is not its current royalty, but its great history, which is largely reflected by the immense royal palaces. But the British monarchy has lost most of its elegance and prestige of the past… and has now become supermarket-tabloid material.

And the fact that it might allegedly be “expensive” to transform Britain into a republic is NOT a very good argument. Doing the RIGHT thing is rarely simple and inexpensive. History has shown that plenty of times. In the long run, Britain would be better off without a monarchy.

I say keep them. The generate money from tourism and have no political power. Plus, their would be so much to change, the national anthem and removing royal from everything.

Ok, well accroding to the following link:

http://www.royal.gov.uk

The taxpayer forks out 37 million pounds a year towards maintaining the position of Head of State. This cost would apply to a President as well.

The Royal Family, however, pays 170.8 million pounds worth of tax a year to the British Treasury.

I'd say that the costs are outweighed by the revenue substantially.

Ok, well accroding to the following link:

http://www.royal.gov.uk

The taxpayer forks out 37 million pounds a year towards maintaining the position of Head of State. This cost would apply to a President as well.

The Royal Family, however, pays 170.8 million pounds worth of tax a year to the British Treasury.

I'd say that the costs are outweighed by the revenue substantially.

Ok, well accroding to the following link:

http://www.royal.gov.uk

The taxpayer forks out 37 million pounds a year towards maintaining the position of Head of State. This cost would apply to a President as well.

The Royal Family, however, pays 170.8 million pounds worth of tax a year to the British Treasury.

I'd say that the costs are outweighed by the revenue substantially.

One can only wonder what work is performed by the Royal Family to earn the income on which they pay "170.8 million pounds worth of tax a year".

Or does this, in fact, merely represent the income derived from the enormous estates that they hold, estates which would, of course, become state owned land if a republic was formed.

Ok, well accroding to the following link:

http://www.royal.gov.uk

The taxpayer forks out 37 million pounds a year towards maintaining the position of Head of State. This cost would apply to a President as well.

The Royal Family, however, pays 170.8 million pounds worth of tax a year to the British Treasury.

I'd say that the costs are outweighed by the revenue substantially.

One can only wonder what work is performed by the Royal Family to earn the income on which they pay "170.8 million pounds worth of tax a year".

Or does this, in fact, merely represent the income derived from the enormous estates that they hold, estates which would, of course, become state owned land if a republic was formed.

Actually, only some buildings are property of the state (such as Buckingham Palace). Many of the estates (the income earning properties) are owned by members of the Royal family and would not be handed over if Britain were to become a Republic. Most lords in England who own properties do very little hands-on work (as the lands are agricultural).

The fact is that the Royal family is a non-expense in light of these accurate costs. So...why waste time and money on creating a Republic? Expensive symbolism simply wouldn't cut it with the 3rd most highly taxed people in the world.

Ok, well accroding to the following link:

http://www.royal.gov.uk

The taxpayer forks out 37 million pounds a year towards maintaining the position of Head of State. This cost would apply to a President as well.

The Royal Family, however, pays 170.8 million pounds worth of tax a year to the British Treasury.

I'd say that the costs are outweighed by the revenue substantially.

i still find it ridiculous that £5m of tax money is going to Prince Charles's London home instead of using it to improve public transportation. besides, i justified my opinion with the rest of what i posted.

the idea of tourism being massively boosted by the monarchy is also false. Tourism income would actually increase in the absence of a monarchy.

A good example is France, which attracts three times as many foreign tourists as Britain. The French Palaces, which once housed royalty, have become the biggest tourist attractions in Europe. Britain’s royal art collections and other royal artifacts could be transformed into galleries or sent to museums, which would boost tourism significantly. It’d be a much better use for them than just keeping them hidden from the public.

I say keep them. The generate money from tourism and have no political power. Plus, their would be so much to change, the national anthem and removing royal from everything.

As UTLPNA has noted, France, which has a similar population, attracts far more tourists. Their royal palaces are completely opened to the public.

Also the fact that they generate tourism is not a valid arguement. Otherwise Micky Mouse would be Head of State in America. It is also insulting to the British people to say that our tourism industry is only from a few unelected aristocrats.

BTW- Why hasn't the surname of the Royal family changed to Mountebatten, as that's the name of the Queen's husband. I thought they always took the husband's name in the Royal family

Because Elizabeth only married into that family, rather than coming from that family. When She dies and the Crown moves to Charles, it will be the House of Mountebatten.

Ok, well accroding to the following link:

http://www.royal.gov.uk

The taxpayer forks out 37 million pounds a year towards maintaining the position of Head of State. This cost would apply to a President as well.

The Royal Family, however, pays 170.8 million pounds worth of tax a year to the British Treasury.

I'd say that the costs are outweighed by the revenue substantially.

i still find it ridiculous that £5m of tax money is going to Prince Charles's London home instead of using it to improve public transportation. besides, i justified my opinion with the rest of what i posted.

the idea of tourism being massively boosted by the monarchy is also false. Tourism income would actually increase in the absence of a monarchy.

A good example is France, which attracts three times as many foreign tourists as Britain. The French Palaces, which once housed royalty, have become the biggest tourist attractions in Europe. Britain’s royal art collections and other royal artifacts could be transformed into galleries or sent to museums, which would boost tourism significantly. It’d be a much better use for them than just keeping them hidden from the public.

Yet, Britain has one of the best public transport systems in the world so I have no idea why you think it needs more money.

The French palaces are open because, well, the people murdered their sovereign. Britain also boasts many castles and palaces which are open to the public...one example is Carnarvon Castle, which boasts one of the finest collections of Egyptian artefacts outside of Egypt. Many lords are able to keep their mansions and castles because they open them to public viewing. I have no idea why you would believe the British palaces are closed - are you an American?

It is understandable, however, in these troubled times that the public would be kept away from some places when the sovereign is nearby.

When people go to London...one of the most popular attractions is the Tower of London. This building is 100% owned by the Royals and is financed by ticket sales, which are considerable. The attraction is the history - carved out by the Royal family.

Also, things like the crown jewels are on display, as well as many other historical artefacts associated with the Royals and Britain's glorious heritage. Where you get the idea that Britain is lacking in royal enclosures open to public viewing I have no clue...since there are many places open.

Not being British would make it very difficult for me to take the time to get exact figures (in pounds). That, and the details I need to prove what I already know to be true, are not on the internet.

Have you looked? Anyway, you seem like a clever person, so you could, say, Find out the suze of the navy and provide an estimate that way.

Since I have issues here to deal with, I cannot be bothered trying to prove commonsense.

Because it is common sense not to want to live in a democracy?

So it doesn't matter that a Republic would cost too much because you are not a Republican for "monetary reasons". Geez, tell that one to the British taxpayer - 3rd highest taxed in the world.


I am a British taxpayer.

But, the Monarchy are not responsible for the tax rate, so that deserves a differant thread.

I wouldn't have thought acknowledging the vast costs of changing Britain from a monarchy to a republic would have been that difficult.

To ask someone to do a costing of such an exercise is ridiculous.

Yet, Britain has one of the best public transport systems in the world so I have no idea why you think it needs more money.

Have you tried it?

If this is one of the best, I'd hate to see the second best.

The French palaces are open because, well, the people murdered their sovereign. [.quote]

Be fair. He did murder many of them. And they only executed him after he tried to escape to Varennes (iirc), and after they discovered he was plotting against the country with his wife's family. Before then he held a similar position to the current British Monarchy (with slightly more power.)

[quote]Britain also boasts many castles and palaces which are open to the public...one example is Carnarvon Castle, which boasts one of the finest collections of Egyptian artefacts outside of Egypt. Many lords are able to keep their mansions and castles because they open them to public viewing. I have no idea why you would believe the British palaces are closed - are you an American?

I think it he/she was trying to say that the big Palaces such as Buckingham Palace, could completely opened to the public, which would generate far more revenue. But I could be wrong

It is understandable, however, in these troubled times that the public would be kept away from some places when the sovereign is nearby.

Suppose so. But I think it is more the fact that Buck House is her house. And as much as I dislike the monarchy, I sympathise with the fact that they don't want anyone being able to go all round their house. Would you?


When people go to London...one of the most popular attractions is the Tower of London. This building is 100% owned by the Royals and is financed by ticket sales, which are considerable. The attraction is the history - carved out by the Royal family.

A Republic would not try and destroy everything that the royals have done. Are you sure that it owned by the royals, rather then the crown?

As UTLPNA has noted, France, which has a similar population, attracts far more tourists. Their royal palaces are completely opened to the public.

That you believe France attracts more tourists because of its open palaces is absurd.

Although in 2001 France attracted 76.5 million tourists from around the world, one must consider not only the attractions, but also:

1. Cost & convienience - It is cheaper to get to France than the UK (and will be more so as Blair introduces his 500 pound entrance levy). 64.8 million of those tourists came from continental Europe (of which 15.5 million came from Germany and 12.7 million from the UK). Notice how both these countries are but a stone throw away from France.

http://uk.franceguide.com/mieuxconnaitre/qui.asp?z1=bYSbDNDM

2. Although only 5.75 million tourists came to the UK in 2003, the UK is a much smaller place than France.

As UTLPNA has noted, France, which has a similar population, attracts far more tourists. Their royal palaces are completely opened to the public.

That you believe France attracts more tourists because of its open palaces is absurd.

Although in 2001 France attracted 76.5 million tourists from around the world, one must consider not only the attractions, but also:

1. Cost & convienience - It is cheaper to get to France than the UK (and will be more so as Blair introduces his 500 pound entrance levy). 64.8 million of those tourists came from continental Europe (of which 15.5 million came from Germany and 12.7 million from the UK). Notice how both these countries are but a stone throw away from France.

http://uk.franceguide.com/mieuxconnaitre/qui.asp?z1=bYSbDNDM

2. Although only 5.75 million tourists came to the UK in 2003, the UK is a much smaller place than France.

My mistake, I understand where you were coming from.

It wasn't intentional to make it sound as if

France has open palaces, therefore, they get more tourists.

But I see that that was the most obvious interpretation of it.

I just meant to point out that a Republic would not destroy our tourism industry.

As UTLPNA has noted, France, which has a similar population, attracts far more tourists. Their royal palaces are completely opened to the public.

That you believe France attracts more tourists because of its open palaces is absurd.

Although in 2001 France attracted 76.5 million tourists from around the world, one must consider not only the attractions, but also:

1. Cost & convienience - It is cheaper to get to France than the UK (and will be more so as Blair introduces his 500 pound entrance levy). 64.8 million of those tourists came from continental Europe (of which 15.5 million came from Germany and 12.7 million from the UK). Notice how both these countries are but a stone throw away from France.

http://uk.franceguide.com/mieuxconnaitre/qui.asp?z1=bYSbDNDM

2. Although only 5.75 million tourists came to the UK in 2003, the UK is a much smaller place than France.

Listen son....quit while you still have a modicum of dignity.

After your comment regarding the UK's public transport system you will need to do an awfull amount of work to regain any kind of respect.

Still give the tripe you just posted I guess that you will never above zero.

I must ask though...are you actually aware what you are saying?

Britain also boasts many castles and palaces which are open to the public...one example is Carnarvon Castle, which boasts one of the finest collections of Egyptian artefacts outside of Egypt. Many lords are able to keep their mansions and castles because they open them to public viewing. I have no idea why you would believe the British palaces are closed - are you an American?

I think it he/she was trying to say that the big Palaces such as Buckingham Palace, could completely opened to the public, which would generate far more revenue. But I could be wrong

It is understandable, however, in these troubled times that the public would be kept away from some places when the sovereign is nearby.

Suppose so. But I think it is more the fact that Buck House is her house. And as much as I dislike the monarchy, I sympathise with the fact that they don't want anyone being able to go all round their house. Would you?


1. Buckingham Palace, under a Republic, would more than likely become a Presidential Palace (much like Louis XVI palace in Paris - cant remember its name - is now occupied by Chirac). So it would probably not be open.

2. Naturally. It is an invasion of privacy if you ask me.

1. Buckingham Palace, under a Republic, would more than likely become a Presidential Palace (much like Louis XVI palace in Paris - cant remember its name - is now occupied by Chirac). So it would probably not be open.


Now that could be an interesting debate. If only I knew more republicans.

I just meant to point out that a Republic would not destroy our tourism industry.

I know it would not destroy the British tourism industry. I was pointing out that the Royals enhance it. It was suggested that a Republic would increase tourism because of all the open palaces there would be (which I have refuted with evidence).

1. Buckingham Palace, under a Republic, would more than likely become a Presidential Palace (much like Louis XVI palace in Paris - cant remember its name - is now occupied by Chirac). So it would probably not be open.


Now that could be an interesting debate. If only I knew more republicans.

Well the President would have to live somewhere now wouldn't he. I suppose he could shack up with Tony... :lol:

2. Naturally. It is an invasion of privacy if you ask me.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But, wasn't it the royals who opened it up on their own free will, to help restore Windsor Castle after the fire?

1. Buckingham Palace, under a Republic, would more than likely become a Presidential Palace (much like Louis XVI palace in Paris - cant remember its name - is now occupied by Chirac). So it would probably not be open.


Now that could be an interesting debate. If only I knew more republicans.

Well the President would have to live somewhere now wouldn't he. I suppose he could shack up with Tony... :lol:

I'd love to see that.

Have you ever seen Little Britain?

I just meant to point out that a Republic would not destroy our tourism industry.

I know it would not destroy the British tourism industry. I was pointing out that the Royals enhance it. It was suggested that a Republic would increase tourism because of all the open palaces there would be (which I have refuted with evidence).

I'm not claiming (intentionally) that a republic will increase tourism. But that it would remain untouched.

Ok, well accroding to the following link:

http://www.royal.gov.uk

The taxpayer forks out 37 million pounds a year towards maintaining the position of Head of State. This cost would apply to a President as well.

The Royal Family, however, pays 170.8 million pounds worth of tax a year to the British Treasury.

I'd say that the costs are outweighed by the revenue substantially.

i still find it ridiculous that £5m of tax money is going to Prince Charles's London home instead of using it to improve public transportation. besides, i justified my opinion with the rest of what i posted.

the idea of tourism being massively boosted by the monarchy is also false. Tourism income would actually increase in the absence of a monarchy.

A good example is France, which attracts three times as many foreign tourists as Britain. The French Palaces, which once housed royalty, have become the biggest tourist attractions in Europe. Britain’s royal art collections and other royal artifacts could be transformed into galleries or sent to museums, which would boost tourism significantly. It’d be a much better use for them than just keeping them hidden from the public.

Yet, Britain has one of the best public transport systems in the world so I have no idea why you think it needs more money.

The French palaces are open because, well, the people murdered their sovereign. Britain also boasts many castles and palaces which are open to the public...one example is Carnarvon Castle, which boasts one of the finest collections of Egyptian artefacts outside of Egypt. Many lords are able to keep their mansions and castles because they open them to public viewing. I have no idea why you would believe the British palaces are closed - are you an American?

It is understandable, however, in these troubled times that the public would be kept away from some places when the sovereign is nearby.

When people go to London...one of the most popular attractions is the Tower of London. This building is 100% owned by the Royals and is financed by ticket sales, which are considerable. The attraction is the history - carved out by the Royal family.

Also, things like the crown jewels are on display, as well as many other historical artefacts associated with the Royals and Britain's glorious heritage. Where you get the idea that Britain is lacking in royal enclosures open to public viewing I have no clue...since there are many places open.

you obviously don't have a clue. it's interesting that u assume (or imply)that britain's public sectors are state of the art, and dont need constant maintenance. from this i can tell you've never been to britain. and giving a few examples of what is "open" to the public is silly, for it would not compare to the amount of tourism created if the monarchy were removed. and you are totally avoiding the point of this topic by just concentrating on tourism! this is merely the superficial side of the issue at hand.

you obviously don't have a clue. it's interesting that u assume (or imply)that britain's public sectors are state of the art, and dont need constant maintenance. from this i can tell you've never been to britain. and giving a few examples of what is "open" to the public is silly, for it would not compare to the amount of tourism created if the monarchy were removed. and you are totally avoiding the point of this topic by just concentrating on tourism! this is merely the superficial side of the issue at hand.

Then please provide evidence to support your claim that tourism will be increased if Britain were to become a Republic. You make borad, sweeping statements, yet not once have I seen a shred of evidence to support what you say.

I understand that you are new to this thread. I would strongly advise you to read all the posts. Other issues have been raised and argued passionately on both sides of the debate.

As for maintaining public transport, I would imagine the various budgets take that into account. If not, I cannot see how removing the monarchy will do any good, when it has been accepted that the Queen pays for herself (and more, to the sum of 133.8 million pounds)

I'm not claiming (intentionally) that a republic will increase tourism. But that it would remain untouched.

Well then, there is no argument for removing the momarchy on the grounds of increasing tourism. We can agree there. This person UTLPNA seems to believe the opposite.

bla bla bla

lol you make broad sweeping statements by decrying the allegedly devastating costly price of becoming a republic. I simply use “commonsense” :D

And as I said in my second post, the fact that it might be “expensive” to transform Britain into a republic is NOT a very good argument. Doing the RIGHT thing is rarely simple and inexpensive. History has shown that plenty of times. In the long run, Britain would be better off without a monarchy.

The British deserve a modern democracy. And they deserve the right to elect anyone who holds a position in public office. Meaning ALL public officials should be accountable for their actions and subject to the people.

Other than being a good show and a reminder that the Middle Ages are long gone, they seem to be doing nothing useful. Or maybe that's just me.


But really. If I were in Britain (which may happen.... :shock: ) and were, for some odd reason, asked to show my respects for the royal family and act in good manner towards them. I'd give them my respect for being a struggling blue-blooded member of the gene pool. But I would NEVER treat them better than I treat my good ol President. Presidents, Queens, Kings, my friends, strangers. All are equals in my eye.


But enough about me. What's the point of that royal family?

None. They were there for the church of England and to lead the country, but now they have no purpose to be honest.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But, wasn't it the royals who opened it up on their own free will, to help restore Windsor Castle after the fire?

I don't know if you could say it was "of their own free will": more like "grudgingly agreeing to it to help damp down public anger at the fact that the restoration of the uninsured Windsor Castle was being paid for by the British taxpayers, despite the enormous unearned personal wealth of the Royal Family."

hi...i'm from britain and the Royal Family is the best thing here...Tony Blaire in the person who has to go...he wants to get rid of the monarchy!! i love the fact that we have a royal family and the ceremonies which are held for them are lovely to watch...well that's my opinion :D

can i just say again...i totally agree with what colodia said...we should respect the royal family...oh and britain is a lovely place to live!! great sites

bla bla bla

lol you make broad sweeping statements by decrying the allegedly devastating costly price of becoming a republic. I simply use “commonsense” :D

And as I said in my second post, the fact that it might be “expensive” to transform Britain into a republic is NOT a very good argument. Doing the RIGHT thing is rarely simple and inexpensive. History has shown that plenty of times. In the long run, Britain would be better off without a monarchy.

The British deserve a modern democracy. And they deserve the right to elect anyone who holds a position in public office. Meaning ALL public officials should be accountable for their actions and subject to the people.

Incredibly immature. "blah, blah, blah"...I do not recall writing that. Why on Earth do these people flamebait (or spam)? Why?

Please try providing a sustained argument...most people here have and continue to.

Incredibly immature. "blah, blah, blah"...I do not recall writing that. Why on Earth do these people flamebait (or spam)? Why?

Please try providing a sustained argument...most people here have and continue to.

pointless. all you read was "bla bla bla" and avoided the rest. anyway..

once again, true democracy is important. heads of state are inherited. it's very strange for this to exist nowadays.

Citizens of Britain should have the right to elect anyone who holds a position in public office to avoid arbitrary decision-making.

i believe socio-economic status should not be considered for any public office. it's unfair

The current anthem sucks!…queen this, queen that! Its so…I don’t know…but they deserve a more patriotic and passionate anthem.

there are obsolete customs and arcane procedures that must be removed

have they ever contributed to housing, education, health care and employment?

monarchy symbolizes completely the opposite of inclusiveness. They represent the inequalities and differences in class, race and religion.

without the Queen as Head of state, there would be a more true seperation of state and religion. (the queen is also the head of the Church of England)

Having a republic would help create a Bill of Rights

British monarchs simply inherit their positions. Shouldn’t the citizens of Britain be represented by those who have achieved greatness by their own merit?

Doesn’t the Queen have the ability to dissolve Parliament and choose the Prime Minister following a general election? This is stupid because she may be illiterate and evil, yet still have the ability to do this, for she has the “special” right of being born into the position.

Other special rights that the Queen enjoys are: being able to declare war, conclude treaties, and grant pardons without the consent of Parliament.

The Queen officially makes a large number of appointments to key positions of influence. But in reality the P.M. does the selecting. So why keep the queen? This and other procedures would be simplified without the monarchy.

For being head of state, The queen earns £7.9 million per year! Doing what exactly?

They get all their travel expenses and palace “maintenances” paid by parliament.

And those little places you said were open to the public…well the income from fees go to the Royal Collection Trust. So doesn’t that take away money from the state?

And as stated before, the state own palaces and other properties would generate a great deal of money for the Treasury. This means more funding for education and other things that matter.

There are many many more examples of the potential cost cuts that a republic would generate, which would in time pay for your allegedly expensive transition from a monarchy to a republic.

Conclusion: a change in the governmental system would do Britain good—economically and socially.

@Spanish Biru
:? You really seem to suffer from conspiracy theories. :( :( :(
The decision to reform the House of Lords has NOTHING TO DO with the EU. .

Aha but Blair is pro-Europe and he only wants things like that because the EU wants them. And I know conspiracy theories are complete trash; JFK was shot by Oswald, Apollo 11 DID land on the moon and Hitler is dead (otherwise he'd be 115). :D

@Spanish Biru
You have to complain to your prime minister about that - if there is anything to complain about (i don´t know I´m not British).

My goodness, do I sound BRITISH in this thread??? AAAAAGGGHHHH!!!!!!
.....must quickly change opinions to sound like my own country..... ummm......."Burn the Royals! Burn the French!" Any better? What nationality do I sound like now? This is what I get for being an ex-pat living in Britain........

@Spanish Biru,

"Aha but Blair is pro-Europe and he only wants things like that because the EU wants them"
- What things?????
Shall I name all EU countries which are monarchies????
The assumption the EU wants Britain to end monarchy is RUBBISH.
Their are countries in the EU with a second chamber of parliament - which are having different rights and power from country to country - and countries with an one-chamber system. The EU DOESN´T interfere with that.


"Burn the Royals! Burn the French!" Any better? What nationality do I sound like now?" - American :twisted: :twisted:

The current anthem sucks!…queen this, queen that! Its so…I don’t know…but they deserve a more patriotic and passionate anthem.

there are obsolete customs and arcane procedures that must be removed

have they ever contributed to housing, education, health care and employment?

monarchy symbolizes completely the opposite of inclusiveness. They represent the inequalities and differences in class, race and religion.

without the Queen as Head of state, there would be a more true seperation of state and religion. (the queen is also the head of the Church of England)

Having a republic would help create a Bill of Rights

British monarchs simply inherit their positions. Shouldn’t the citizens of Britain be represented by those who have achieved greatness by their own merit?

Doesn’t the Queen have the ability to dissolve Parliament and choose the Prime Minister following a general election? This is stupid because she may be illiterate and evil, yet still have the ability to do this, for she has the “special” right of being born into the position.

Other special rights that the Queen enjoys are: being able to declare war, conclude treaties, and grant pardons without the consent of Parliament.

The Queen officially makes a large number of appointments to key positions of influence. But in reality the P.M. does the selecting. So why keep the queen? This and other procedures would be simplified without the monarchy.

For being head of state, The queen earns £7.9 million per year! Doing what exactly?

They get all their travel expenses and palace “maintenances” paid by parliament.

And those little places you said were open to the public…well the income from fees go to the Royal Collection Trust. So doesn’t that take away money from the state?

And as stated before, the state own palaces and other properties would generate a great deal of money for the Treasury. This means more funding for education and other things that matter.

There are many many more examples of the potential cost cuts that a republic would generate, which would in time pay for your allegedly expensive transition from a monarchy to a republic.

Conclusion: a change in the governmental system would do Britain good—economically and socially.

Well you have once again failed to provide evidence in support of your claims that "a change in the governmental system would do Britain good - economically and socially."

Perhaps you are not aware, clearly being an American (your rant about a bill of rights is indicative of this) that there would still be the costs of a Presidency. That cost would be roughly the same. The President would more than likely occupy Buckingham Palace, thereby removing it from tourist eyes.

Of course, the assumption of greater tourism with the opening up of palaces is unfounded. The introduced entrance levy to the UK of 500 pounds will naturally deter people. Besides, there are only a handful of palaces owned by the people. The rest are privately owned. Interesting that these are the ones taking in the revenue from tourist visits.

As for my "allegedly expensive transition" it is a commonsense argument. That you seem to believe changing the entire system of government would not be expensive in the 21st century indicates your lack of understanding of this issue. The costs, as stated previously would be far reaching and punitive. Once again I would ask that you take the time and read all the posts to gain a better understanding of this issue.

The fee revenue gained from private castles and estates go to whomever owns them. Often these are lords, earls etc who need to pay their taxes in some way. Those fees from places belonging to the Royals privately naturally go to them.

Your insinuation that the Queen is "illiterate and evil" does no credit to your argument. You might like to know that Elizabeth can both read and write. She is also the head of the Church of England. Are you suggesting the Church of England is evil?

The people of Britain are represented by elected representatives. The sovereign is a non-political position. Since reforms under Queen Victoria, the sovereign cannot act in a way similar to other heads of state...such as the US President. The Queen did not decide to go to war in Iraq, for example, the Prime Minister Tony Blair did. She has no actual power to decide political events...she cannot vote and when she sits in parliament, she is a guest.

This idea that the monarch is a tyrannical dictator is ludicrous. If we take a look at the US President and his near totalitarian powers (veto Congress, go to war on any pretext etc) and compare it to a head of state whom is above politics and ideology, then I would have to say that the British people are better off.

Perhaps, since you are so fervently in support of democracy, why then do you not ask your countrymen why the President of the United States is elected by the people at the generosity of state governors. The US President can be appointed, and the only reason why he is elected, is because state governors choose so.

Now...tell me, does that sound like democracy to you? I didn't think so.

It's pageantry and history, that's what the royal family symbolizes, and it's a great symbol for all countries that have them.

Well you have once again failed to provide evidence in support of your claims that "a change in the governmental system would do Britain good - economically and socially."

Perhaps you are not aware, clearly being an American (your rant about a bill of rights is indicative of this) that there would still be the costs of a Presidency. That cost would be roughly the same. The President would more than likely occupy Buckingham Palace, thereby removing it from tourist eyes.

Of course, the assumption of greater tourism with the opening up of palaces is unfounded. The introduced entrance levy to the UK of 500 pounds will naturally deter people. Besides, there are only a handful of palaces owned by the people. The rest are privately owned. Interesting that these are the ones taking in the revenue from tourist visits.

As for my "allegedly expensive transition" it is a commonsense argument. That you seem to believe changing the entire system of government would not be expensive in the 21st century indicates your lack of understanding of this issue. The costs, as stated previously would be far reaching and punitive. Once again I would ask that you take the time and read all the posts to gain a better understanding of this issue.

The fee revenue gained from private castles and estates go to whomever owns them. Often these are lords, earls etc who need to pay their taxes in some way. Those fees from places belonging to the Royals privately naturally go to them.

Your insinuation that the Queen is "illiterate and evil" does no credit to your argument. You might like to know that Elizabeth can both read and write. She is also the head of the Church of England. Are you suggesting the Church of England is evil?

The people of Britain are represented by elected representatives. The sovereign is a non-political position. Since reforms under Queen Victoria, the sovereign cannot act in a way similar to other heads of state...such as the US President. The Queen did not decide to go to war in Iraq, for example, the Prime Minister Tony Blair did. She has no actual power to decide political events...she cannot vote and when she sits in parliament, she is a guest.

This idea that the monarch is a tyrannical dictator is ludicrous. If we take a look at the US President and his near totalitarian powers (veto Congress, go to war on any pretext etc) and compare it to a head of state whom is above politics and ideology, then I would have to say that the British people are better off.

Perhaps, since you are so fervently in support of democracy, why then do you not ask your countrymen why the President of the United States is elected by the people at the generosity of state governors. The US President can be appointed, and the only reason why he is elected, is because state governors choose so.

Now...tell me, does that sound like democracy to you? I didn't think so.

Next time actually read my posts. Sit down. think about them. It’s just a suggestion.

“Perhaps you are not aware, clearly being an American (your rant about a bill of rights is indicative of this) that there would still be the costs of a Presidency. That cost would be roughly the same.”

Do you have something against Americans? My nationality is irrelevant! And it’s extremely dumb to think that one must be an American in order to want a list of basic human rights as guaranteed by the laws of a country!

And when did I say the presidency would be cost-free? You assume too many things.
Must I remind you of the examples I gave of the potential cost cuts that a republic would generate? And there are many more examples, but what’s the point? All is wrong if it’s not in accord with your views. Everything I posted should be enough for a decent person to comprehend.

Besides, the benefits of having an elected President are quite simple to understand; it’s about fairness and equality, increased openness, and accountability.

For all we know, your “commonsense” could be as warped as a corrupt criminal’s. So try avoiding that word. It makes you sound arrogant….it’s as if u were saying YOUR commonsense is above everyone else’s… which is not considering your comments.

One needs not “commonsense” to understand how state own palaces and other properties would generate a great deal of money for the Treasury. Some knowledge of tourism and economics helps!

“Your insinuation that the Queen is "illiterate and evil" does no credit to your argument.”

When did I insinuation that the Queen is illiterate and evil? For your information, the word “may” indicates that something COULD happen.

“Are you suggesting the Church of England is evil?”

YES! …… a stupid answer to a stupid question.

“The sovereign is a non-political position… The Queen did not decide to go to war in Iraq, for example, the Prime Minister Tony Blair did. She has no actual power to decide political events...she cannot vote and when she sits in parliament, she is a guest.”

Once again, try actually reading my posts! When and where did I say the queen decided to go to war in Iraq? And if it’s just an example, well, it’s a bad one. I think we all know the P.M. decided to go to war. This brings nothing to either side of the argument. The point is that the Monarch of Britain has certain powers she shouldn’t have in a modern democracy.

“This idea that the monarch is a tyrannical dictator is ludicrous. If we take a look at the US President and his near totalitarian powers (veto Congress, go to war on any pretext etc)… ”

I never said the monarch is a tyrannical dictator. Do some research for god’s sake! Haha. A two-thirds majority in Congress CAN override the president’s veto. The only reason why the president might seem to have totalitarian powers is because congress itself is currently full of right wing lunatics like Bush. So obviously they’ll agree with the president.

“Now...tell me, does that sound like democracy to you? I didn't think so.”

Oh please. You’re trying to shift the subject by comparing Britain with the current situation of the U.S.! And yes, democracy has worked quite well in the U.S. Unfortunately, Bush has done a terrible job in keeping true to democracy. That’s why he won’t be re-elected. But anyway, this is beside the point.


I shall stand by my argument, for you have shown nothing new and have only given negative self-defense comments. YOU, boy, have failed to accurately read my posts and it’s clear that your emotions have gotten the better of you. Hmmm. The difference between my posts (with exception of this one) and yours is that you are aggressively defending yourself and trying to prove Everything I write wrong; whereas, my comments are simple Facts and ideas that I gladly share. You have like this knee-jerk reaction to contradict me. It’s quite apparent, for u showed that u actually did not try to analyze my posts. I believe all my comments have been justified. So stop wasting your time and enough dribbling.

Flamers :roll: Honestly, why is it when people put forward a strong case, supported by reasoning and sources/evidence/fact etc there are those (as above) who create incredibly long posts designed to personally attack those who discredit them? Why cannot we have some civil debate, instead of vicious and unfounded attacks?

I will once again ask UTPLNA to provide evidence in support of her/his claims. I have posted many sources in support of my statements. Surely, others can do the same? (I know many already have)

Flamers :roll: Honestly, why is it when people put forward a strong case, supported by reasoning and sources/evidence/fact etc there are those (as above) who create incredibly long posts designed to personally attack those who discredit them? Why cannot we have some civil debate, instead of vicious and unfounded attacks?

I will once again ask UTPLNA to provide evidence in support of her/his claims. I have posted many sources in support of my statements. Surely, others can do the same? (I know many already have)

I think I get the theme of UTPLNA's posts. Britain should scrap their political system which has served them well in order to adopt the American system.
Why change something that works for no apparent reason or gain? There are those that do not want the monarchy and those that do, always will be. The royal family do not actually influence politics, they pay taxes which far outweigh their cost to the taxpayer for official functions as shown by Thuthmose III.
I too would be interested to see UTPLNA's evidence that Britain will gain more from tourism without a monarchy.

Other than being a good show and a reminder that the Middle Ages are long gone, they seem to be doing nothing useful. Or maybe that's just me.


But really. If I were in Britain (which may happen.... :shock: ) and were, for some odd reason, asked to show my respects for the royal family and act in good manner towards them. I'd give them my respect for being a struggling blue-blooded member of the gene pool. But I would NEVER treat them better than I treat my good ol President. Presidents, Queens, Kings, my friends, strangers. All are equals in my eye.


But enough about me. What's the point of that royal family?

They make excellent guacamole. Really good stuff. Best you ever had. :wink:

Flamers :roll: Honestly, why is it when people put forward a strong case, supported by reasoning and sources/evidence/fact etc there are those (as above) who create incredibly long posts designed to personally attack those who discredit them? Why cannot we have some civil debate, instead of vicious and unfounded attacks?

I will once again ask UTPLNA to provide evidence in support of her/his claims. I have posted many sources in support of my statements. Surely, others can do the same? (I know many already have)

For those unfamiliar with this posters history (i.e. Thuthmose III), he has been deleted at least twice for flaming. Last time he was back within hours, boasting how he had set up his Thuthmose III identiity against the eventuality of his being deleted (he was previously "Lord" Pheonix Benecius).

His old tactic of making frivolous claims re the expense of something, based purely on his own idea of "commonsense" is another favoured tactic.

I see nothing has changed.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

Flamers :roll: Honestly, why is it when people put forward a strong case, supported by reasoning and sources/evidence/fact etc there are those (as above) who create incredibly long posts designed to personally attack those who discredit them? Why cannot we have some civil debate, instead of vicious and unfounded attacks?

I will once again ask UTPLNA to provide evidence in support of her/his claims. I have posted many sources in support of my statements. Surely, others can do the same? (I know many already have)

For those unfamiliar with this posters history (i.e. Thuthmose III), he has been deleted at least twice for flaming. Last time he was back within hours, boasting how he had set up his Thuthmose III identiity against the eventuality of his being deleted (he was previously "Lord" Pheonix Benecius).

His old tactic of making frivolous claims re the expense of something, based purely on his own idea of "commonsense" is another favoured tactic.

I see nothing has changed.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

Have you even read Thuthmose III's posts on this thread Smeagol? He has provided evidence of his claims and has used commonsense.

Don't let your dislike of Thuthmose III cloud your judgement.

Flamers :roll: Honestly, why is it when people put forward a strong case, supported by reasoning and sources/evidence/fact etc there are those (as above) who create incredibly long posts designed to personally attack those who discredit them? Why cannot we have some civil debate, instead of vicious and unfounded attacks?

I will once again ask UTPLNA to provide evidence in support of her/his claims. I have posted many sources in support of my statements. Surely, others can do the same? (I know many already have)

For those unfamiliar with this posters history (i.e. Thuthmose III), he has been deleted at least twice for flaming. Last time he was back within hours, boasting how he had set up his Thuthmose III identiity against the eventuality of his being deleted (he was previously "Lord" Pheonix Benecius).

His old tactic of making frivolous claims re the expense of something, based purely on his own idea of "commonsense" is another favoured tactic.

I see nothing has changed.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

Have you even read Thuthmose III's posts on this thread Smeagol? He has provided evidence of his claims and has used commonsense.

Don't let your dislike of Thuthmose III cloud your judgement.

Yes, I have read his posts.

As proof, let me quote some of his assertions.

"Now...a British Republic would cost the average Briton a lot of money (even more than one would in Australia)."

"There are two choices: Keep the Royals or pay big bucks to elect (or appoint) a President."

"Given that the Royals own each and every one of their estates, where would the President live? Inevitably, a Presidential Palace would be needed. The cost of which would more than likely approximately several hundred million pounds (possibly more - you know what these architects are like)."

"First of all, I am not British and therefore would not dream of even trying to provide exact costings of a British Republic. However, by simple deduction and some commonsense..."

"Not being British would make it very difficult for me to take the time to get exact figures (in pounds). That, and the details I need to prove what I already know to be true, are not on the internet. Since I have issues here to deal with, I cannot be bothered trying to prove commonsense. "

"The costs involved in becoming a Republic will be enormous."

" accroding to the following link:

http://www.royal.gov.uk

The taxpayer forks out 37 million pounds a year towards maintaining the position of Head of State. This cost would apply to a President as well."

As can be seen, the common theme is cost. This supposed cost has no source other than his own "commonsense".

The only website quoted i.e. http://www.royal.gov.uk describes itself as "The Official Website of the British Monarchy". One would tend to question its reliability and lack of bias.

I would be happy to post links establishing his record as a serial flamer if required.

I would be happy to post links establishing his record as a serial flamer if required.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the question under discussion. I understood that discussions were about putting across one's point of view. Sure, others are going to differ but...isn't that the whole point of a good discussion? If we all agreed it wouldn't be a discussion, would it? :D

I caught sight of this in passing and agree with Tygaland.

C'mon chaps. If you are going to pull our (yeah, i'm a Brit) royalty to bits then please play fair and discuss the issue in a mature way. Stiff upper lip and all that, what?

*Twirls moustache and lifts hat politely* :wink:

I would be happy to post links establishing his record as a serial flamer if required.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the question under discussion. I understood that discussions were about putting across one's point of view. Sure, others are going to differ but...isn't that the whole point of a good discussion? If we all agreed it wouldn't be a discussion, would it? :D

I caught sight of this in passing and agree with Tygaland.

C'mon chaps. If you are going to pull our (yeah, i'm a Brit) royalty to bits then please play fair and discuss the issue in a mature way. Stiff upper lip and all that, what?

*Twirls moustache and lifts hat politely* :wink:

I agree.

But to see this individual criticise another for flaming, when I know his reputation, was just too much for me.

I am afraid that I have little sympathy with hypocrisy.

But enough about me. What's the point of that royal family?

To remind us not to breed with relatives. :)

I would be happy to post links establishing his record as a serial flamer if required.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the question under discussion. I understood that discussions were about putting across one's point of view. Sure, others are going to differ but...isn't that the whole point of a good discussion? If we all agreed it wouldn't be a discussion, would it? :D

I caught sight of this in passing and agree with Tygaland.

C'mon chaps. If you are going to pull our (yeah, i'm a Brit) royalty to bits then please play fair and discuss the issue in a mature way. Stiff upper lip and all that, what?

*Twirls moustache and lifts hat politely* :wink:

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Let the discussion continue!

I haven't read all of the posts in this thread but I tink that the monarchy in the UK functions much the same as the exectutive branch of the US government, right? I don't understand why you would want whos womb one came from to determine who plays that role rather than choosing them. though.

Dunno if this has already been said, I skipped about 9 pages. Sorry, I don't care THAT much.

Those of you nay-sayers who can't stand the level of wealth that rests with the royal family, I ask you: what would you have them do?

No, I'm not a fan of theirs, I think they're a bunch of snooty polo-playing pissants.

But it's their money. Whether or not they earned it or had it handed down to them is ENTIRELY BEYOND THE POINT. It's their money to use. So again, what would you have them do? Give it all away to the poor? I always thought charity was voluntary.

Forcibly taking money and giving it to the poor is ridiculous. And monetary welfare checks are a failed answer to poverty.

I would be happy to post links establishing his record as a serial flamer if required.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the question under discussion. I understood that discussions were about putting across one's point of view. Sure, others are going to differ but...isn't that the whole point of a good discussion? If we all agreed it wouldn't be a discussion, would it? :D

I caught sight of this in passing and agree with Tygaland.

C'mon chaps. If you are going to pull our (yeah, i'm a Brit) royalty to bits then please play fair and discuss the issue in a mature way. Stiff upper lip and all that, what?

*Twirls moustache and lifts hat politely* :wink:

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Let the discussion continue!

You suggested that I should read his posts. I have and quoted them. May I suggest that you read mine.

As can be seen, the common theme is cost. This supposed cost has no source other than his own "commonsense".

Commonsense would dictate that removing any reference to the monarchy from government buildings, the military, embassies, schools etc plus all letterheads and seals would be a long and expensive exercise I would have thought.
As for expecting someone to provide an accurate cost of such an exercise is ludicrous. The pure magnitude of the exercise would make calculating such a cost impossible.
Surely you can concede that the removal of all references to the monarchy would be extremely expensive?

Flamers :roll: Honestly, why is it when people put forward a strong case, supported by reasoning and sources/evidence/fact etc there are those (as above) who create incredibly long posts designed to personally attack those who discredit them? Why cannot we have some civil debate, instead of vicious and unfounded attacks?

I will once again ask UTPLNA to provide evidence in support of her/his claims. I have posted many sources in support of my statements. Surely, others can do the same? (I know many already have)

I think I get the theme of UTPLNA's posts. Britain should scrap their political system which has served them well in order to adopt the American system.

No one has advocated switching to American system. I am nearly just as opposed to the American system as I am to Monarchy. (Nothing against America, I just do not like the idea of the head of state having so much power.)

A cerimonial presidency is worlds away from the American Presidential system.

Why change something that works for no apparent reason or gain?

No reason or Gain? It will make the country more democratic, there will be more accountability and transparency. We will finally do away with the culture of automatic deference. The powers of the executive will be reduced considerebly.

There are those that do not want the monarchy and those that do, always will be. The royal family do not actually influence politics,

Chazza tries his best though. And if they are apolitical, why does the Queen advise the PM?

they pay taxes which far outweigh their cost to the taxpayer for official functions as shown by Thuthmose III.

irrelevent. Maybe you should see how I started signing some of my posts.

As can be seen, the common theme is cost. This supposed cost has no source other than his own "commonsense".

Commonsense would dictate that removing any reference to the monarchy from government buildings, the military, embassies, schools etc plus all letterheads and seals would be a long and expensive exercise I would have thought.
As for expecting someone to provide an accurate cost of such an exercise is ludicrous. The pure magnitude of the exercise would make calculating such a cost impossible.
Surely you can concede that the removal of all references to the monarchy would be extremely expensive?

No, I consider that the cost would be very quickly repaid as a result of not having to maintain the royal family (and remember it is an extended family).

Further savings would be made by having their large income-earning estates revert to the ownership of the people.

Many countries have managed the transition from monarchy to republic without finding the exercise expensive. Why on earth should Britain (or Australia for that matter) prove to be exceptional?

Also, if the supposed cost is to be the argument pushed so hard, then some source would be expected, particularly when the costings are disputed by those living in Britain.

As can be seen, the common theme is cost. This supposed cost has no source other than his own "commonsense".

Commonsense would dictate that removing any reference to the monarchy from government buildings, the military, embassies, schools etc plus all letterheads and seals would be a long and expensive exercise I would have thought.

We'll just do it the British way. Just leave them there. I don't call the elected President King if you want, if it will make you feel better.

btw. A republic will not go on a Stalinist purge to remove "any reference to the monarchy." And I really don't see how removing a crest from letterheads will be expensive. And all existing documents don't have to have the royal paraphenalia (sp?) removed, what the point?

As for expecting someone to provide an accurate cost of such an exercise is ludicrous. The pure magnitude of the exercise would make calculating such a cost impossible.

nice excuse ;)

Surely you can concede that the removal of all references to the monarchy would be extremely expensive?

It will be. But why do we have to remove all references to the monarchy?

As can be seen, the common theme is cost. This supposed cost has no source other than his own "commonsense".

Commonsense would dictate that removing any reference to the monarchy from government buildings, the military, embassies, schools etc plus all letterheads and seals would be a long and expensive exercise I would have thought.
As for expecting someone to provide an accurate cost of such an exercise is ludicrous. The pure magnitude of the exercise would make calculating such a cost impossible.
Surely you can concede that the removal of all references to the monarchy would be extremely expensive?

No, I consider that the cost would be very quickly repaid as a result of not having to maintain the royal family (and remember it is an extended family).

Further savings would be made by having their large income-earning estates revert to the ownership of the people.

What would be repaid? You said it would not be expensive.

[Many countries have managed the transition from monarchy to republic without finding the exercise expensive. Why on earth should Britain (or Australia for that matter) prove to be exceptional?

Also, if the supposed cost is to be the argument pushed so hard, then some source would be expected, particularly when the costings are disputed by those living in Britain.

These questions have been answered by Thuthmose III earlier, please go back and read them. If you dispute them then bring some evidence to show why he is wrong.

As can be seen, the common theme is cost. This supposed cost has no source other than his own "commonsense".

Commonsense would dictate that removing any reference to the monarchy from government buildings, the military, embassies, schools etc plus all letterheads and seals would be a long and expensive exercise I would have thought.

We'll just do it the British way. Just leave them there. I don't call the elected President King if you want, if it will make you feel better.

btw. A republic will not go on a Stalinist purge to remove "any reference to the monarchy." And I really don't see how removing a crest from letterheads will be expensive. And all existing documents don't have to have the royal paraphenalia (sp?) removed, what the point?

So you would keep the Royal Navy etc? I doubt it, afterall the republic would not want reference to the monarchy surely?

As for expecting someone to provide an accurate cost of such an exercise is ludicrous. The pure magnitude of the exercise would make calculating such a cost impossible.

nice excuse ;)

yes, but also reality.

Surely you can concede that the removal of all references to the monarchy would be extremely expensive?

It will be. But why do we have to remove all references to the monarchy?

Because Britain would be a republic. Why would you keep references to the monarchy?

No, I consider that the cost would be very quickly repaid as a result of not having to maintain the royal family (and remember it is an extended family).

Further savings would be made by having their large income-earning estates revert to the ownership of the people.


Smeagol, how good of you to join us. Take a seat, have a scone. Would you like a cup of Devonshire Tea?

Now...

As reported earlier, the cost to the taxpayer is currently 37 million pounds. Yet the Queen pays 170.8 million pounds in tax. I believe she pays for herself. You also fail to mention that a Presidency too has ongoing costs. Judging by the US Presidency and its costs, I would say the Queen is a much more favourable alternative.

As reported earlier, the people already own certain palaces such as Buckingham Palace. Money would NOT be saved as a British President would need somewhere to live. Most of the royal estates are owned by members of the royal family. Unless you would advocate a revolution like the one in France during 1789, there is no way the British people will be taking possession of private property. They already own the rest.

DP

DP - Annoying Server!!! :evil:

DP

The royal family is a source of something that alot of the british people look up to it unites alot of the country. They have been there with us through the thick of it. they were there to during ww2 when the people were getting bombed so were they. They also as stated before act as a failsafe over the government. yes they also act as a tourist puller but there what we follow. We fight for queen and country at the momment and when the time comes that will change to for king and country.

We are the nation that made the world as it is today. without us america wouldnt be either would alot of other countries. we paved the way for the rest of the world to follow and the people who were there headin the whole thing were our royal family. that is why we need and should keep the royal family they are britan they help remind people we are the best.

No, I consider that the cost would be very quickly repaid as a result of not having to maintain the royal family (and remember it is an extended family).

Further savings would be made by having their large income-earning estates revert to the ownership of the people.


Smeagol, how good of you to join us. Take a seat, have a scone. Would you like a cup of Devonshire Tea?

Now...

As reported earlier, the cost to the taxpayer is currently 37 million pounds. Yet the Queen pays 170.8 million pounds in tax. I believe she pays for herself. You also fail to mention that a Presidency too has ongoing costs. Judging by the US Presidency and its costs, I would say the Queen is a much more favourable alternative.

As reported earlier, the people already own certain palaces such as Buckingham Palace. Money would NOT be saved as a British President would need somewhere to live. Most of the royal estates are owned by members of the royal family. Unless you would advocate a revolution like the one in France during 1789, there is no way the British people will be taking possession of private property. They already own the rest.

The tax paid by the queen is on income derived from the royal estates.

Surely a republic would not leave her running these extensive properties, but would return them to the people.

A viuolent revolution like France 1789 would not be necessary. I would consider that exile would be more suitable than execution. She could join the many other pretenders to the vacant thrones of Europe (all nations which managed the change with minimal cost).

Why on earth would you got to what you claim as enormous expense in renaming naval ships, amending paperwork etc, and yet leave the 'royal estates" "owned" by the "royal family"?

No, I consider that the cost would be very quickly repaid as a result of not having to maintain the royal family (and remember it is an extended family).

Further savings would be made by having their large income-earning estates revert to the ownership of the people.


Smeagol, how good of you to join us. Take a seat, have a scone. Would you like a cup of Devonshire Tea?

Now...

As reported earlier, the cost to the taxpayer is currently 37 million pounds. Yet the Queen pays 170.8 million pounds in tax. I believe she pays for herself. You also fail to mention that a Presidency too has ongoing costs. Judging by the US Presidency and its costs, I would say the Queen is a much more favourable alternative.

As reported earlier, the people already own certain palaces such as Buckingham Palace. Money would NOT be saved as a British President would need somewhere to live. Most of the royal estates are owned by members of the royal family. Unless you would advocate a revolution like the one in France during 1789, there is no way the British people will be taking possession of private property. They already own the rest.

The tax paid by the queen is on income derived from the royal estates.

Surely a republic would not leave her running these extensive properties, but would return them to the people.

A viuolent revolution like France 1789 would not be necessary. I would consider that exile would be more suitable than execution. She could join the many other pretenders to the vacant thrones of Europe (all nations which managed the change with minimal cost).

Why on earth would you got to what you claim as enormous expense in renaming naval ships, amending paperwork etc, and yet leave the 'royal estates" "owned" by the "royal family"?

Errr...because it would no longer be the royal navy. The estates are owned by the people Smeagol, do you suggest they are confiscated?

The royal family seek exile? This gets better and better.

The royal family is a source of something that alot of the british people look up to it unites alot of the country. They have been there with us through the thick of it. they were there to during ww2 when the people were getting bombed so were they. They also as stated before act as a failsafe over the government. yes they also act as a tourist puller but there what we follow. We fight for queen and country at the momment and when the time comes that will change to for king and country.

We are the nation that made the world as it is today. without us america wouldnt be either would alot of other countries. we paved the way for the rest of the world to follow and the people who were there headin the whole thing were our royal family. that is why we need and should keep the royal family they are britan they help remind people we are the best.

Yes, the royal family remaining in London during the blitz was a source of great inspiration to the British people in a trying time and a sign of the patriotism that the royal family represent. They could easily have fled but they did not.

No, I consider that the cost would be very quickly repaid as a result of not having to maintain the royal family (and remember it is an extended family).

Further savings would be made by having their large income-earning estates revert to the ownership of the people.


Smeagol, how good of you to join us. Take a seat, have a scone. Would you like a cup of Devonshire Tea?

Now...

As reported earlier, the cost to the taxpayer is currently 37 million pounds. Yet the Queen pays 170.8 million pounds in tax. I believe she pays for herself. You also fail to mention that a Presidency too has ongoing costs. Judging by the US Presidency and its costs, I would say the Queen is a much more favourable alternative.

As reported earlier, the people already own certain palaces such as Buckingham Palace. Money would NOT be saved as a British President would need somewhere to live. Most of the royal estates are owned by members of the royal family. Unless you would advocate a revolution like the one in France during 1789, there is no way the British people will be taking possession of private property. They already own the rest.

The tax paid by the queen is on income derived from the royal estates.

Surely a republic would not leave her running these extensive properties, but would return them to the people.

A viuolent revolution like France 1789 would not be necessary. I would consider that exile would be more suitable than execution. She could join the many other pretenders to the vacant thrones of Europe (all nations which managed the change with minimal cost).

Why on earth would you got to what you claim as enormous expense in renaming naval ships, amending paperwork etc, and yet leave the 'royal estates" "owned" by the "royal family"?

1. Most of the estates generating revenue are private property and therefore would remain the property of the (ex) royals if a republic were to eventuate.

2. See #1

3. All Republics which were forged in Europe came about amid political, economic and military struggle. Not once in Europe's history has a change of government system come about during peace and economic wellbeing. The costs today (as stated previously) are too great and unecessary as the current system works perfectly.

4. Once again, see #1. The Royal Navy is not owned by the Queen, but by the nation. The Queen's private lands are hers. Naturally these would be left untouced.

Also...

I really don't see how removing a crest from letterheads will be expensive. And all existing documents don't have to have the royal paraphenalia (sp?) removed, what the point?

Well have you any idea how much official correspondence passes in and out of government and the palace on a daily basis? There is enough to make Green groups groan in agony!

Not from existing documents, no. But what about the new batch of documents fresh from the printers and all the stock which is kept handy? What a waste. Meanwhile other costs include:

1. The currency
2. All public property with a Royal affix - as mentioned before, the Royal navy alone would be a costly venture.
3. Embassies
4. Government officies
5. Passports - notice the cover of British passports - all need to be changed (calculate the number of people with passports and multiple them by the cost of a new passport)
6. Building a constitution and reforming the parliamentary process

...and the list goes on...

Now I know there will be 1 person who claims everything here is false, but once again, it is a matter of commonsense. The size of these changes alone are enough to indicate how expensive the UK becoming a Republic would be.

...but, we shall move onto other aspects now, as it has been established that the costs of becoming a Republic would be enormous and that the current system of democratic government works.

No, I consider that the cost would be very quickly repaid as a result of not having to maintain the royal family (and remember it is an extended family).

Further savings would be made by having their large income-earning estates revert to the ownership of the people.


Smeagol, how good of you to join us. Take a seat, have a scone. Would you like a cup of Devonshire Tea?

Now...

As reported earlier, the cost to the taxpayer is currently 37 million pounds. Yet the Queen pays 170.8 million pounds in tax. I believe she pays for herself. You also fail to mention that a Presidency too has ongoing costs. Judging by the US Presidency and its costs, I would say the Queen is a much more favourable alternative.

As reported earlier, the people already own certain palaces such as Buckingham Palace. Money would NOT be saved as a British President would need somewhere to live. Most of the royal estates are owned by members of the royal family. Unless you would advocate a revolution like the one in France during 1789, there is no way the British people will be taking possession of private property. They already own the rest.

The tax paid by the queen is on income derived from the royal estates.

Surely a republic would not leave her running these extensive properties, but would return them to the people.

A viuolent revolution like France 1789 would not be necessary. I would consider that exile would be more suitable than execution. She could join the many other pretenders to the vacant thrones of Europe (all nations which managed the change with minimal cost).

Why on earth would you got to what you claim as enormous expense in renaming naval ships, amending paperwork etc, and yet leave the 'royal estates" "owned" by the "royal family"?

Errr...because it would no longer be the royal navy. The estates are owned by the people Smeagol, do you suggest they are confiscated?

The royal family seek exile? This gets better and better.

No, I am merely suggesting that estates currently "owned" by the "royal family" be returned to the ownership of the state, or be auctioned by the state. And that the royal family be exiled. This is, after all, the standard procedure, as I have pointed out already, for the other deposed European monarchs. Where did you think that they had disappeared to?

Well, the British royal families do keep the tabloids in print :lol: But I suppose you could see that as a bad thing. I admit, I am tired of seeing Princess Diana's face on the cover of society magazines. I mean, she was a great person and did many good things (which we can discuss tomorrow) but, honestly how many "secrets" are there to reveal? Do these people have filing cabinets of documents and photos etc? It is kind of sad...but the press's obsession with the Royals and the high sales of papers and magazines would suggest public interest in their monarch and her family remains strong.

No, I am merely suggesting that estates currently "owned" by the "royal family" be returned to the ownership of the state, or be auctioned by the state. And that the royal family be exiled. This is, after all, the standard procedure, as I have pointed out already, for the other deposed European monarchs. Where did you think that they had disappeared to?

So you think the royal family would just hand over their estates to the state and then go into exile? Why should they hand over what they own to the state?

No, I am merely suggesting that estates currently "owned" by the "royal family" be returned to the ownership of the state, or be auctioned by the state. And that the royal family be exiled. This is, after all, the standard procedure, as I have pointed out already, for the other deposed European monarchs. Where did you think that they had disappeared to?

So you think the royal family would just hand over their estates to the state and then go into exile? Why should they hand over what they own to the state?

Smeagol is just baiting you Tygaland. I wouldn't waste my time discrediting something that discredits itself in print.

No, I am merely suggesting that estates currently "owned" by the "royal family" be returned to the ownership of the state, or be auctioned by the state. And that the royal family be exiled. This is, after all, the standard procedure, as I have pointed out already, for the other deposed European monarchs. Where did you think that they had disappeared to?

So you think the royal family would just hand over their estates to the state and then go into exile? Why should they hand over what they own to the state?

I believe that the term you are searching for is "return to the people". When the monarchy packs up and leaves.

Just as has occured through most of Europe.

By the way, have you noticed that Ireland (the South at least) managed the enormous cost of becoming a republic? And so did India, and Pakistan, and Italy, and Greece and numerous others? And that what was previously "royal estates" are no longer owned by the "royal family"?

Yes, the royal family remaining in London during the blitz was a source of great inspiration to the British people in a trying time and a sign of the patriotism that the royal family represent. They could easily have fled but they did not.

Although let's face it, if they HAD fled, what chance would there have been of us having them back afterwards? There was an element of self-preservation about the royals' decision to stay -- after all, they had great big deep cellars to hide in, and were well away from the industrial and dockland targets of the main German air-raids. Not to take anything away from them, but it really wasn't that brave or inspirational.

Don't overestimate the role the royals played in WWII. The true heroes were the ordinary men and women who slogged through 6 years of misery and hardship. Patriotic wartime newsreel trumpetings are not necessarily accurate reflections of the opinion of the nation.

I don't think it's worth arguing for a republic on the grounds of cost. It's more a case of 'moral' principle versus a sense of tradition. I have the greatest respect for history and tradition provided that it doesn't impede worthwhile progress.

I'm a republican (how refreshing to see this word not used in reference to US politics), thought I'm fairly relaxed on the issue. I believe that having a monarchy runs contrary to the principles of equality and liberty. However, I would only advocate a gradual phasing out of the monarchy; it would probably be less painful and probably easier to co-ordinate than an abrupt removal. Besides, there simply isn't sufficient desire in the UK for a republic. Yet. A majority would like top see the monarchy scaled down and I think this is a sensible step to take now, but the republic should probably wait.

What would we call ourselves once 'UK' becomes an anachronism? I'd like to see the 'Great' part of our current name disappear, personally. I should point out that I'm no nationalist and have little time for the nation-state as an entity (oh, the irony...) but the nation appears to be here to stay for a long while yet, sadly, so we have to make the best of it we can.

As can be seen, the common theme is cost. This supposed cost has no source other than his own "commonsense".

Commonsense would dictate that removing any reference to the monarchy from government buildings, the military, embassies, schools etc plus all letterheads and seals would be a long and expensive exercise I would have thought.

We'll just do it the British way. Just leave them there. I don't call the elected President King if you want, if it will make you feel better.

btw. A republic will not go on a Stalinist purge to remove "any reference to the monarchy." And I really don't see how removing a crest from letterheads will be expensive. And all existing documents don't have to have the royal paraphenalia (sp?) removed, what the point?

So you would keep the Royal Navy etc? I doubt it, afterall the republic would not want reference to the monarchy surely?

Why. It is like saying the French don't like monarchic references.

Letterheads could be changed electronically. Like I said, existing document wouldn't change. Not just because it is expensive, but because of the manpower needed to do a minor cosmetic change.

As for expecting someone to provide an accurate cost of such an exercise is ludicrous. The pure magnitude of the exercise would make calculating such a cost impossible.

nice excuse ;)

yes, but also reality.

Surely you can concede that the removal of all references to the monarchy would be extremely expensive?

It will be. But why do we have to remove all references to the monarchy?

Because Britain would be a republic. Why would you keep references to the monarchy?

Because it is history. Why should a British Republic go on a Stalinist purge to eradicate all references to the Monarchy. Such a claim is ludicrous. When the Monarchy changes family, the new family don't try and eradicate all references to to the old one.

We should keep the monarchy. without them, we re just another boring country, and would be swallowed up by europe. The royal family symbolise our nationalism, who we are, and where we once were in the world. Besides, a Monarch is just like an unelected president in most countries, where the Pime minister runs the outfit and the President is just head of state and the army. People want to see a monarch, but not a president. Far more people visit Buckingham Palace than wherever it is the French president lives, for example.

We should keep the monarchy. without them, we re just another boring country, and would be swallowed up by europe. The royal family symbolise our nationalism, who we are, and where we once were in the world. Besides, a Monarch is just like an unelected president in most countries, where the Pime minister runs the outfit and the President is just head of state and the army. People want to see a monarch, but not a president. Far more people visit Buckingham Palace than wherever it is the French president lives, for example.

We should keep the monarchy. without them, we re just another boring country, and would be swallowed up by europe. The royal family symbolise our nationalism, who we are, and where we once were in the world.

Funny, I'd use this part of your statement as a reason NOT to have the monarchy.

It’s amusing at best to see some people rambling on about the apocalyptical consequences of changing Britain into a democracy… As if everything had to be frantically changed and disposed of.

“1. The currency “

Does “Euro” ring a bell? I’m sure these countries are doing quite well with the new currency. Now, I know some of you love insinuating so let me make this clear; I’m not saying Britain should start using the euro as its currency.


“2. All public property with a Royal affix - as mentioned before, the Royal navy alone would be a costly venture.”

I’m sure this would happen in a logical time span and in an orderly fashion—nothing chaotic or anything that would be terribly expensive. And once again, the fact that it might allegedly be “expensive” to transform Britain into a republic is NOT a very good argument. Nothing is cheap.

“3. Embassies”

The same goes for this

“4. Government offices”

uh huh. This too.

Hmmm. Do you think as soon as this is seriously proposed, the monarchy will be overthrown the following day? These things take time. Just like it took time for the euro to be fully implemented. No big fuss about it.

“5. Passports - notice the cover of British passports - all need to be changed (calculate the number of people with passports and multiple them by the cost of a new passport)”

haha. Don’t you need to renew your passport anyway? One must renew them every ..like 5 or 10 years. The British would simply keep their passports and the next time they receive their new passports, there’d be no royal insignias on them.

“6. Building a constitution and reforming the parliamentary process”

…..umm, yes, actually having a written constitution. And this is bad why?

The only thing ludicrous is your negative stance toward a true democracy and your exaggerated claims

Commonsense…HA! Give me a break!

lol I sound like that journalist from 20/20.

I´m not british but I think you should keep the monachry.
My aunt would be bored if she couldn´t read about them in the yellow press :)
Well: to be serious. I think it is important for Britain. The royal family has a very important function: they represent the unity of the United Kingdom. I think a country like the UK NEEDS integration figures and institutions. The royal family plays a very important role in that. Prince Phillip is Duke of Edinborough and Prince Charles the prince of Wales. Due to this functions the royal family unites the UK. Without them Scotland may seek independence.
By the way: how would you name your country without a monarchy. UK wouldn´t do.
Probably United States of (Great) Britain (USB)???? :twisted:

“6. Building a constitution and reforming the parliamentary process”

…..umm, yes, actually having a written constitution. And this is bad why?


I don't believe he said it was bad, just that it was another expense.

I´m not british but I think you should keep the monachry.
My aunt would be bored if she couldn´t read about them in the yellow press :)
Well: to be serious. I think it is important for Britain. The royal family has a very important function: they represent the unity of the United Kingdom. I think a country like the UK NEEDS integration figures and institutions. The royal family plays a very important role in that. Prince Phillip is Duke of Edinborough and Prince Charles the prince of Wales. Due to this functions the royal family unites the UK. Without them Scotland may seek independence.
By the way: how would you name your country without a monarchy. UK wouldn´t do.
Probably United States of (Great) Britain (USB)???? :twisted:

They represent the unity of the United Kingdom? By being what? German and exclusively aristocratic and elitist?

As for the name- Republic of Great Britain, I think.

I get rather irritated when a man who, say, has devoted his whole life to curing TB, or a woman who has spent her whole life looking after sick children whilst bringing up her own on a meagre wage is honoured by a woman who is paid millions of pounds each year to wear nice dresses and welcome rich foreign people to her really big house that all the poor people pay for and has never done a decent days work in her life. Surely it should be the other way round? I'd be honoured if, say, James Lovelock or Stephen Fry or Lucien Freud honoured me. I mean, that means something. But to be honoured by a lazy old woman who keeps dogs? That's just weird.



That's why I support a Ceremonial Presidency. It'd only be logical to accept an honour from someone who's done something. To have the support and recognition of, say, Mo Mowlam or Robert Winston- that's something to be proud of.



And for the British People to be able to choose who represents them- that's a good idea. Instead of some random selection of nature from a highly limited gene pool. What does that represent? Other than the fine British tradition of inter-breeding and privilege of birth, of course.



I mean, wouldn't it be better if the British People could say 'We are citizens of our own nation, not subjects to an unelected ruler. We choose [enter great citizen here] to represent us. This is [great citizen], and he/she shows the world everything that is great about our land!'



At the moment it's... 'We are the subjects of this woman. Who chose her? Nobody knows. But, erm, yeah, she wears nice hats! And has a pretty smile! Let's ignore her racist husband and odd family... skip over that bit... erm.. She wears nice hats! Hurrah!'




The other point is- I am British, yet I can not join the Police and enforce the law of my land, I cannot take up arms in war to defend my people, I cannot even support my community by joining the Fire Service

“6. Building a constitution and reforming the parliamentary process”

…..umm, yes, actually having a written constitution. And this is bad why?


I don't believe he said it was bad, just that it was another expense.

A lot of things are an "expense".

It certainly does not mean that they should not occur.

Raising children for example, could be seen as an 'expense".

Other than being a good show and a reminder that the Middle Ages are long gone, they seem to be doing nothing useful. Or maybe that's just me.


But really. If I were in Britain (which may happen.... :shock: ) and were, for some odd reason, asked to show my respects for the royal family and act in good manner towards them. I'd give them my respect for being a struggling blue-blooded member of the gene pool. But I would NEVER treat them better than I treat my good ol President. Presidents, Queens, Kings, my friends, strangers. All are equals in my eye.


But enough about me. What's the point of that royal family?

Question, what country are you from? Also, i'm a brit and i think they are a bunch of tossers. They do shit all to help run the country. The headline to a newspaper a few years back was "prince harry breaks his thumb" who gives a shit? Another was "queen buys rubber duck" Seriously. Noq does anybody give a shit? No, i didn't think so. I think royalty should be abolished.

The true fact here is we have the royal family an dby the looks of it it will stay.
As a people we love our country i certainly do. i see it as the one sane country in the world. we look to our royal family as something that bonds us all.
I hate the idear of europe and the USE (United states of europe). this island is Great Britain it always will be to me because of our role in this world both past and present. The royals make us who we are and will do for the forseable future.

By the way: how would you name your country without a monarchy. UK wouldn´t do.
Probably United States of (Great) Britain (USB)???? :twisted:

They represent the unity of the United Kingdom? By being what? German and exclusively aristocratic and elitist?

As for the name- Republic of Great Britain, I think.

You people do realise that "Great Britain" refers only to the landmass which is comprised of Scotland, Wales and England, don't you? What are you all planning to do to Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, and the other miscellaneous parts of the UK?

By the way: how would you name your country without a monarchy. UK wouldn´t do.
Probably United States of (Great) Britain (USB)???? :twisted:

They represent the unity of the United Kingdom? By being what? German and exclusively aristocratic and elitist?

As for the name- Republic of Great Britain, I think.

You people do realise that "Great Britain" refers only to the landmass which is comprised of Scotland, Wales and England, don't you? What are you all planning to do to Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, and the other miscellaneous parts of the UK?

Quite. Maybe the only reason to keep the monarchy is so we can use the UK as a catch-all term. Otherwise we're buggered. I can't see something like Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Territories and Colonies (GBNITC) catching on and there's no way we'll get away with being called something like The Republic. Mind you, UK (& US) are enormously arrogant terms, as if they are THE United Kingdom/States.

By the way: how would you name your country without a monarchy. UK wouldn´t do.
Probably United States of (Great) Britain (USB)???? :twisted:

They represent the unity of the United Kingdom? By being what? German and exclusively aristocratic and elitist?

As for the name- Republic of Great Britain, I think.

You people do realise that "Great Britain" refers only to the landmass which is comprised of Scotland, Wales and England, don't you? What are you all planning to do to Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, and the other miscellaneous parts of the UK?

Quite. Maybe the only reason to keep the monarchy is so we can use the UK as a catch-all term. Otherwise we're buggered. I can't see something like Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Territories and Colonies (GBNITC) catching on and there's no way we'll get away with being called something like The Republic. Mind you, UK (& US) are enormously arrogant terms, as if they are THE United Kingdom/States.

Isn't the full name for the UK the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Do we could have the Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

There is no greater crime than privilege without doing anything to earn it. The royal family lives in extreme wealth while some people in Britain are poor.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

What if you had worked for your money and wanted to leave it to your children? Inherited wealth does not seem so bad now does it?

What if you had worked for your money and wanted to leave it to your children? Inherited wealth does not seem so bad now does it?

The only thing wrong with inherited wealth is that I have no wealthy relatives to inherit from.... :(

Seriously, there is no problem with inherited wealth. If someone inherits their parents fortune, good luck to them!

The next ill educated, bigoted idiot who says the royal family are German wants to stick there head in a poly bag tape up the bottom and keep it there!
Christ alive! We are a country of immigrants and people of mixed heritage, if this is the best you can do you are sadder than I ever imagined republicans could be.
And yes to even think that you must have an amount of bigotry about you, as from such a statement it is implied that there is something wrong with being German.
So unless you can prove you are genetically 100% celtic you have no room to talk, we are a mongrel nation and I’m proud of that.
:x
Rant over, carry on with the debate, as it will not change this great nation.

The next ill educated, bigoted idiot who says the royal family are German wants to stick there head in a poly bag tape up the bottom and keep it there!
Christ alive! We are a country of immigrants and people of mixed heritage, if this is the best you can do you are sadder than I ever imagined republicans could be.
And yes to even think that you must have an amount of bigotry about you, as from such a statement it is implied that there is something wrong with being German.
So unless you can prove you are genetically 100% celtic you have no room to talk, we are a mongrel nation and I’m proud of that.
:x
Rant over, carry on with the debate, as it will not change this great nation.

Calm down.

The references are in jest. I am one of the last people to be able to critisise the monarchy for having a German ancestory.

Did you see the Eddie Izzard program?

Just change your anthem to "God Attack the Queen"

It'll be a big crazy dog, and she can beat him away with a handbag filled with a brick.

ANd to answer your question Conceptualists, YES :p

The next ill educated, bigoted idiot who says the royal family are German wants to stick there head in a poly bag tape up the bottom and keep it there!
Christ alive! We are a country of immigrants and people of mixed heritage, if this is the best you can do you are sadder than I ever imagined republicans could be.
And yes to even think that you must have an amount of bigotry about you, as from such a statement it is implied that there is something wrong with being German.
So unless you can prove you are genetically 100% celtic you have no room to talk, we are a mongrel nation and I’m proud of that.
:x
Rant over, carry on with the debate, as it will not change this great nation.

Calm down.

The references are in jest. I am one of the last people to be able to critisise the monarchy for having a German ancestory.

Did you see the Eddie Izzard program?
No.
And I'm calm now :)
I like the system the way it is. May be we can cut the numbers on the civil list but I think on balance the royal family bring more and pay more money into the economy than they take from it. What is never put about is the rent and other monies due tothe queen that she hands over to the state. Last I checked it was £250 million two years ago. Don't want a president or any of that corruption, the day the queen goes is the day I emigrate.
Just imagine two faced Tony as our president!

By the way: how would you name your country without a monarchy. UK wouldn´t do.
Probably United States of (Great) Britain (USB)???? :twisted:

They represent the unity of the United Kingdom? By being what? German and exclusively aristocratic and elitist?

As for the name- Republic of Great Britain, I think.

You people do realise that "Great Britain" refers only to the landmass which is comprised of Scotland, Wales and England, don't you? What are you all planning to do to Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, and the other miscellaneous parts of the UK?



Quite. Maybe the only reason to keep the monarchy is so we can use the UK as a catch-all term. Otherwise we're buggered. I can't see something like Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Territories and Colonies (GBNITC) catching on and there's no way we'll get away with being called something like The Republic. Mind you, UK (& US) are enormously arrogant terms, as if they are THE United Kingdom/States.

Are the Channel Islands and Isle Of Man part of the UK? Because the Isle of Man has its own parliament. And you always have to fill stuff in differently if you live there, too. Surely if we did become a Republic, we could incorporate the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands into the current UK, to create The British Republic. That's not as arrogant as calling ourselves THE United Kingdom (surely it should be Kingdoms?). Or, we could devolve and have the Republic Of England, The Scottish Republic, give Northern Ireland to the Irish and Wales... to the highest bidder. I suggest we put it on Ebay.