NationStates Jolt Archive

Should they abolish the system?

why spend the time and energy to abolish a system that has nothing but symbolic significance anyway?

Poll? Options being "Yes, God save the Queen." "No, let us remove those elitist bastards." "Other/Anarchy"

What is "monarchY]y"?

absolutely not, that would be like taking baseball away from americans, its part of their identity and culture.

Should they abolish the system?
No they shouldn't,The monarchy is a living link btween the past and now,
a symbol of what once was, and an encouragement of what could be.
you should no more abolish the Monarchy ,than say tear down notre dame cathedral,or the taj mahal.

Yes; they cost us money and have amassed untold wealth that could be spent building hospitals or something.

And wht do they do for the country in return? Apart from giving the tabloids something to obcess over (god forbid they report any actual news) they do nothing. Ambulance technicians save lives daily, teachers equip the next generation of citizens and the monarchy... play polo.

Those useless rich bums need to work like the rest of us do. They have no right to live like, ur, kings while we must suffer at the bottom.

What is "monarchY]y"?
shutup :D

absolutely not, that would be like taking baseball away from americans, its part of their identity and culture.

No, its part of ENGLISH culture.
here in Scotland we need the monarchy as much as I need a kick in the unmentionables.

My lord, you people know absolutely nothing about the Monarchy. Firstly, the Queen is the Head of State - a very important position which Americans do not have, which causes them subtle problems - and also the Monarchy does do work. Aristocrats are our Ambassadors of trade and commerce, they offer us a different face of Britain to that of the actions of our government; our Royalty is respected worldwide.

Britain has a Constitutional Monarchy, it has its idiosyncracies from the traditional constitutional monarchy, but it is one all the same. Without the monarchy it would cause constitutional problems since the Monarchy is a part of the constitution. I wonder if there is anyone on these boards who is studying law, that would make this discussion very interesting - I don't know enough about law to comment as fully as I would like.

And another thing! we couldn't get rid of the Head of State even if we wanted to - bar anarchy. The Head of State - traditionally - makes the law and is actually above the law. This is the defence Saddaam has against the Iraqi people which is why he should be tryed as a war criminal in international law and not by Iraqi law - since he was above it at the time of his "crimes".

And another thing! we couldn't get rid of the Head of State even if we wanted to - bar anarchy. The Head of State - traditionally - makes the law and is actually above the law. This is the defence Saddaam has against the Iraqi people which is why he should be tryed as a war criminal in international law and not by Iraqi law - since he was above it at the time of his "crimes".

I would advocate getting rid of the monarchy, merely because I don't enjoy being property of the crown. As you say though, it would be a difficult thing to do, nigh on impossible even.

It is not that difficult at all because in the British Constitution thanks to the glorious revolution of 1688 Parliament (The House of Commons) is the sovereign power meaning in law it is actually more powerful than the Queen. Therefore is parliament passes an act to dissolve the monarchy and replace it with something else and it went through the Lords (This could be done using the Parliament Act) then the Queen would lose her position. Of course she would need to be replaced with something else!

However I wouldn’t want to see a president like in the US because having a head of state actively involved in running the country as the policy maker tends to give people an increased loyalty to him. This is why the Americans tend to be more loyal to their presidents than us Brits are to our Prime Minister. Personally I think too much loyalty can lead to blind faith and a lack of critical judgement.

why spend the time and energy to abolish a system that has nothing but symbolic significance anyway?

Because some of us find it offensive that we are 'subjects' and we still have to pay for the privilege.

However I wouldn’t want to see a president like in the US because having a head of state actively involved in running the country as the policy maker tends to give people an increased loyalty to him. This is why the Americans tend to be more loyal to their presidents than us Brits are to our Prime Minister. Personally I think too much loyalty can lead to blind faith and a lack of critical judgement.
That is what I meant when I said that not having a seperate head of state causes the Americans subtle problems.

I don't know enough about British law to know whether it is possible to enact legislation to remove the head of state. I'm sure you could remove a particular head of state, but the position of head of state?

I don't understand why they would want to keep a Queen/King. They are a symbol of imperialism and a symbol of why Europe was such a hell-hole.

If the Brits want to stay "loyal" subjects of a Queen who sits in her throne and waves to people, fine by me...not my country.

I don't understand why they would want to keep a Queen/King. They are a symbol of imperialism and a symbol of why Europe was such a hell-hole.

If the Brits want to stay "loyal" subjects of a Queen who sits in her throne and waves to people, fine by me...not my country.
You're an ignorant by-stander, now stand-by.

The Monarchy is not a symbol of Imperialism, that is your own private oppinion. The British Empire - the real symbol of British imperialism - had many British supporters, the Monarchy was simply there at the time. Since when was Europe a "hell-hole" when the whole world wasn't at the same time. The World Wars were just that: world-wide.

Also, I have already mentioned the difficulties of removing a head of state, and other reasons of why we would not want to remove a Monarchy - read them before responding.

Britain should stay a monarchy. I mean that makes Britain special. The egyptian king said when he was ousted: "In fithy years there are only going to be two kings left: the king in card games and the king of England". He was wrong: there are many more monarchies still in place.
But the royal family is a magnet of media interests abroad.
So stick to it.

And by the way: how would you name your country: After all it is called the United KINGDOM (UK)?????

And by the way: how would you name your country: After all it is called the United KINGDOM (UK)?????
If you wanted to be really pedantic you might think it should be called the United Queendom, but it isn't.

No, if anything they should give the royal family more power. That and reopen the tower for business but continue the tours though.

Britain should stay a monarchy. I mean that makes Britain special.

Right, so Britain has nothing else to offer the world. Despite the fact that hell of a lot of things have been invented/discovered here.

But the royal family is a magnet of media interests abroad.
So stick to it.

Great, maybe the poll options should be "Should Britain be a dancing bear for the world."

Terrorism is a magnet of media interest. Should we keep that to?

And by the way: how would you name your country: After all it is called the United KINGDOM (UK)?????
I bet there were people like you 200 hundred years ago saying "But the thirteen colonies has such a nice ring to." Nations change their names.

My lord, you people know absolutely nothing about the Monarchy. Firstly, the Queen is the Head of State - a very important position which Americans do not have,

??

The CIA seems to think differently.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

absolutely not, that would be like taking baseball away from americans, its part of their identity and culture.

Bollocks it is

No, if anything they should give the royal family more power. That and reopen the tower for business but continue the tours though.
Which business?

It used to be a royal residence too.

*thinks*

Actually, that isn't a bad idea.

??

The CIA seems to think differently.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

I apologise, I didn't make myself clear. I meant America didn't have a seperate head of state.

I apologise, I didn't make myself clear. I meant America didn't have a seperate head of state.
Seperate from what?

It has a 'seperation of powers'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kybernetia
Britain should stay a monarchy. I mean that makes Britain special.

Right, so Britain has nothing else to offer the world. Despite the fact that hell of a lot of things have been invented/discovered here.

Quote:
But the royal family is a magnet of media interests abroad.
So stick to it.

Great, maybe the poll options should be "Should Britain be a dancing bear for the world."
Terrorism is a magnet of media interest. Should we keep that to?

Quote:
And by the way: how would you name your country: After all it is called the United KINGDOM (UK)?????

I bet there were people like you 200 hundred years ago saying "But the thirteen colonies has such a nice ring to." Nations change their names.

Well: let me think: the left-road driving, nill median (GMT), Buckingham Palace (with the Queen), the Bobby, those with the black heads you know- don´t know name - tea, Rover and pubs with beer. Anything else??? The colonies of course (which still exist). Well, you can shurely tell me more.
And also how you would name your country which is after all called the UK (United Kingdom)???

By the way: what is wrong with a dancing bear?? It is cute.

Yes; they cost us money and have amassed untold wealth that could be spent building hospitals or something.

And wht do they do for the country in return? Apart from giving the tabloids something to obcess over (god forbid they report any actual news) they do nothing. Ambulance technicians save lives daily, teachers equip the next generation of citizens and the monarchy... play polo.


The money on the Civil list and other public moneies used by the Royal Family is not much at all on the grand scale of things. What about Benefit Fraud. Thats far higher than the money the Royal Family uses. Money thrown at problems at the NHS is more than the Royal Family uses and look how great the NHS is at the moment. Saying Ban the Royal would not save much money at all.

Sorry I forgot the most important things:
The parlamentarian democracy
The common law
Some great elite universities.
Great military: especially navy.
Well: and a nice flag.

No they shouldn't,The monarchy is a living link btween the past and now,
a symbol of what once was, and an encouragement of what could be.
you should no more abolish the Monarchy ,than say tear down notre dame cathedral,or the taj mahal.

Woohoo, tear down buildings.

Seriously; the monarchy is outdated and noone ever sees the Queen anyway.
It's a like to an past gone by, England can't be what it was because now it's immoral to take the land of others, no matter what benefits may also be attached.
As for tourism; all the buildings will still be there and none of the tourists ever see the Queen either. A President like France has could Troop the Colour as well as a monarch and we wouldn't have symbols of the worst kind of capitalism as the figureheads of the nation.

Well: let me think: the left-road driving, nill median (GMT), Buckingham Palace (with the Queen), the Bobby, those with the black heads you know- don´t know name - tea, Rover and pubs with beer. Anything else??? The colonies of course (which still exist). Well, you can shurely tell me more.

Monty Python, bad teeth, funny accents, fantastic bands (Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Clash, Sex Pistols, Happy Mondays, Joy Division, New Order, Stone Roses, Blur Oasis [I could go on for ever]), fish and chips, bangers and mash, chip and gravy, better humour. How much more do you want?

And also how you would name your country which is after all called the UK (United Kingdom)???

The Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

By the way: what is wrong with a dancing bear?? It is cute.

Ask the bear.

Seperate from what?

It has a 'seperation of powers'
What is an "it"?

No they shouldn't,The monarchy is a living link between the past and now,
a symbol of what once was, and an encouragement of what could be.

Wahoo.
Hands up for autocracy and the divine right to rule.

So tell us, what could be?

You could argue that political systems should never change with that logic.

"I think we should get rid of this Soviet Dictatorship."

"No, the dictator is a living link between the past and now,
a symbol of what once was, and an encouragement of what could be."

you should no more abolish the Monarchy ,than say tear down notre dame cathedral,or the taj mahal.

Yes that is exactly what it is like :rolleyes:

What is an "it"?
The US has a seperation of powers.

So, what is the Queen seperate from, which POTUS is not?

While I am not a Royalist, I must point out that they generate far more income for the UK than they receive for their services. Some of them do a grand job. Others are just sad excuses for individuals and need to be taken round the bacjk and have some sense knocked into them.

Most British Republicans are idealists, not penny pinchers.

But pray tell how they generate the money.

The US has a seperation of powers.

So, what is the Queen seperate from, which POTUS is not?
The government traditionally consists of an executive, legislative and judiciary as I am sure you are aware. Yet the American President is head of state as well as the Executive. The Queen as head of state which means that the British executive isn't.

Monty Python, bad teeth, funny accents, fantastic bands (Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Clash, Sex Pistols, Happy Mondays, Joy Division, New Order, Stone Roses, Blur Oasis [I could go on for ever]), fish and chips, bangers and mash, chip and gravy, better humour. How much more do you want?

Quote:
And also how you would name your country which is after all called the UK (United Kingdom)???

The Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Quote:
By the way: what is wrong with a dancing bear?? It is cute.

Ask the bear.

.
Yes, Fish and chips is great. And of course Mr. Bean, hahaha. He (Atkinson) is really great.
So: but if I ask the "bears" - I of coures mean the honourable citizens of the United Kingdom - I hear a majority saying that they are in favour of monarchy. So: why should I listen to one single "bear"???

Yes, Fish and chips is great. And of course Mr. Bean, hahaha. He (Atkinson) is really great.
So: but if I ask the "bears" - I of coures mean the honourable citizens of the United Kingdom - I hear a majority saying that they are in favour of monarchy. So: why should I listen to one single "bear"???

We are the bear, put on show for the rest of the world to enjoy.

I don't understand why they would want to keep a Queen/King. They are a symbol of imperialism and a symbol of why Europe was such a hell-hole.

So is the American president. Let's abolish that bastard.

The money on the Civil list and other public moneies used by the Royal Family is not much at all on the grand scale of things. What about Benefit Fraud. Thats far higher than the money the Royal Family uses. Money thrown at problems at the NHS is more than the Royal Family uses and look how great the NHS is at the moment. Saying Ban the Royal would not save much money at all.
I was thinking of the value of their stuff as opposed to the amount they receive from the tax payer, which (I think) is around the £10 million mark. I saw a program a while ago that was trying to value the Queen and Prince of Wales' assets, they came to a number in the billions.

That kind of cash could run my old secondary school for a millennia. Could pay the tuition fees for millions of university students.

Even taking in to account the fact the "Grand Duchy of Cornwall" etc was included in that there's still insane quantities of cash there that could improve the country. At the absolute least I'd like to see the Royals actively working for the UK, touring places or doing diplomatic visits etc.

In my opinion, the British monarchy is an antiquated symbol of a less enlightened era, representing an unfair system of priveledge granted to individuals solely on the basis of who their parents were. It also is a waste of taxes which could be better spent on government programs or given back to the British people. Since the monarchy has cultural significance, is not a major threat to human rights and democracy, and is not a burden on the British economy, I do not feel that it is a particularly important matter. However, if a clear majority of the British people decide to abolish the monarchy, I believe it to be well within their rights to do so.

P.S.: I would like to note that, as an American, my people passed its judgement on necessity of the British monarchy 228 years ago.

Because some of us find it offensive that we are 'subjects' and we still have to pay for the privilege.


Like Australians (Or all the ones I've known anyway). We're essentially a different country anyway.

You're an ignorant by-stander, now stand-by.

The Monarchy is not a symbol of Imperialism, that is your own private oppinion. The British Empire - the real symbol of British imperialism - had many British supporters, the Monarchy was simply there at the time. Since when was Europe a "hell-hole" when the whole world wasn't at the same time. The World Wars were just that: world-wide.

Also, I have already mentioned the difficulties of removing a head of state, and other reasons of why we would not want to remove a Monarchy - read them before responding.

How can you call someone ignorant for having their own opinions? Surely it's more ignorant to be oblivious to your heritage.

I believe the monarchy is a symbol of imperialism, which has no place in a modern society. The Royal Family are not part of our heritage. To be honest, I find them embarrassing. The British parliamentary system is part of our heritage - so what, we shouldn't reform that? Like Hereditary Peers, the monarchy is ill-equiped to represent the British people.

Aristocracy is not something we should be proud of. History proves it breeds ignorance and intolerance. It is the failings of our ancestors that the monarchy still exists. British history is made by the British people and not by some fanny-adams posh ponce Prince Charles

At the absolute least I'd like to see the Royals actively working for the UK, touring places or doing diplomatic visits etc.
They do. They are ambassadors. There are many positions that the Royals fulfil.

Should they abolish the system?


no. even though the monarch has little more than symbolic value, they do have some power and they help stabilize the government. if the power in parliament shifts, the government shuts down (well that's a simplification but still)... in order to prevent the country from dissolving into chaos, the monarchy provides a backbone.

They are simply useless. I see no point in perpetuating class distinctions that can easily be abolished.

They are simply useless. I see no point in perpetuating class distinctions that can easily be abolished.

ending the monarchy won't end class distinctions... that is foolish. we still have classes in the us even though we don't have titles.

And another thing! we couldn't get rid of the Head of State even if we wanted to - bar anarchy. The Head of State - traditionally - makes the law and is actually above the law. This is the defence Saddaam has against the Iraqi people which is why he should be tryed as a war criminal in international law and not by Iraqi law - since he was above it at the time of his "crimes".

Thats not correct. King James was the most prevelent British Monarch to claim divine right, but even before him English Monarchs have placed themselves under the purview of the Law. In 1215 King John (you know...Prince John from "Robin Hood") signed the Magna Carta, which bound him and all of his heirs to the law of England, among other things (guarenteeing the freedom of the church and defining inheritence, for example). A good and clear example of the powers the monarchy reserved to the barony and subjects can be found in section 57. It says, in summary, that any property taken from any Welshman by Henry, Richard, or John will be returned or released to Welsh law at the end of the crusades, which had been going on since 1096 and would continue until 1270. The magna carta was right in the middle...between the fourth and fifth.

The Magna Carta was a direct forbearer to many other consitutions and social contracts, and though it wasn't directly responsible for modern government, it's ideas parallel those of relatively modern social contract theorists, including Locke, upon whose work the US Consitution is based.

How can[...]failings of our ancestors that the monarchy still exists. British history is made by the British people and not by some fanny-adams posh ponce Prince Charles
I would accept if the question were "If you could remove the monarchy..." that people have raised some good points against the monarchy. But how in the world do you propose to lawfully remove the monarchy?

The Royals generate £millions each year by increasing tourism and the money generated by it.

Thats not correct. King James was the most prevelent British Monarch to claim divine right, but even before him English Monarchs have placed themselves under the purview of the Law. In 1215 King John (you know...Prince John from [...]social contracts, and though it wasn't directly responsible for modern government, it's ideas parallel those of relatively modern social contract theorists, including Locke, upon whose work the US Consitution is based.
I'm not referring to individual Monarchs, I am referring to the position of Monarch. The Royal Prerogative makes the position above the law. You could get the Queen to step down but by our own law her eldest son would step up. How do you remove the position?

[QUOTE=imported_Hogleg]In 1215 King John (you know...Prince John from "Robin Hood") signed the Magna Carta, which bound him and all of his heirs to the law of England, QUOTE]


Actually, the Magna Carta was never signed. I've got a copy of it.

The monarchy in my opinion should be abolished, it is all about a family who fought another family and won, then ended up being crowned.

The monarchy are glorified free loaders, who live of the people of britain.

This is a short version as im watching big brother :cool:

This is a short version as im watching big brother :cool:
All hail the crémé de la crémé of the British man!

just 2 sum of the aparently less aware ppl out there. how is the monarchy oppresive? they don't do anything anymore, the government effectively rules the country. and although we are officially still subjects of the United Kingdom we are given rights equal to or even better than citizens in most civilised countries. And finally, all those people saying we should spend the money on ambulances etc? Well although we do pay for the monarchy we only pay a pittance, a few million per year whereas in extra tourism the queen alone generates around £40mill p.a. for our economy.

No other country in the world has a History like Great Britain. Through our ancestors efforts we reigned supreme and conquered half the world and made it our commonwealth. We have fought some of the greatest battles that are on record and won them, through all that history and glory we had a King Or Queen. Let the US have their President, let France be a republic, the Brits are what they are, a nation with a Monarchy, allways has been, allways will be. "GOD SAVE THE QUEEN"

I would not like to see the monarchy disposed of. However, I would not mind seeing the crown bypass Prince Charles and go straight to Prince William. I am realistic though, so I realise that this will probably never happen.

I would not like to see the monarchy disposed of. However, I would not mind seeing the crown bypass Prince Charles and go straight to Prince William. I am realistic though, so I realise that this will probably never happen.
Who knows??? The queen may get very old - like here mother. And she is not the person who would turn over the crown - which is a common practise in the Netherlands for example. She is going to fulfill her duty till the end of her life.
So Charles may already be 60 or 70 when he could become king. Maybe even before of that the pressure would rise on him to resign from his position of Prince of Wales and to hand it over to prince William, who would then already be 40 or so.
Who knows.
Though I think Prince Charles could be a good king it can not be excluded that the development could be the way I described.

I don't see the point in abolishing the monarchy, for a start i'd much rather have a virtually powerless King or Queen (apparently there are still legal loopholes which give them some power) as a head of state than a president.

Secondly, a very large proportion of royal income is from admission to royal estates and they actually generate much more money in tourism than they take from taxpayers. If money needs to go into the NHS get rid of the stupid number of managers and admin staff and perhaps the politicians can stop giving themselves pay increases.

Finally, i'm not sure if it is actually possible for the government to dissolve the monarchy.

Also the royal family can't actually use all their stated wealth. Incidently I was having a discussion withg someone about who the military would be more likely to follow, the government or the Queen, it might sound obvious but it would be interesting to find out.

Which business?

It used to be a royal residence too.

*thinks*

Actually, that isn't a bad idea.
Both. It can also become a dominatrix stronghold.

The Great Royal Debate: Do we hang them or do we shoot them? :D

Despite my political inclination suggesting that I might object strongly to the Monarchy, I don't for a number of reasons.
I'm British, I see what impact the Royals have on the country- none- in terms of running it anyway. As they have mere symbolic relevance there is little point in removing them.
Moreover, they bring in a lot of money through the tourist element, and much of the tourist industry here relies on us continuing to be a Monarchy. They may cost the country some money, but financially they bring in far more money than they cost.
However, I do not believe in subsidising the distant royal family, and I do believe they should pay inheritance tax.

The Royals generate £millions each year by increasing tourism and the money generated by it.

Britain has a large tourist industry. Britain has a monarchy.
Therefore the Monarchy attract a lot of tourists.

Think. Many republics have a tourist trade, and things many tourists go to see, but America has not made mickey Mouse the president. There is no proof (that I know of) that says a British Republic will generate less tourism.

Utinam coniurati te in foro interficiant

No other country in the world has a History like Great Britain. Through our ancestors efforts we reigned supreme and conquered half the world and made it our commonwealth. We have fought some of the greatest battles that are on record and won them, through all that history and glory we had a King Or Queen.

We also had soldiers to fight them, which I kinda think had more to do with the victories the whoever inhabited Buck house.

Congradulation on realising the History of each nation is unique, as a historian, it is not something I had previously noticed.

Secondly, a very large proportion of royal income is from admission to royal estates and they actually generate much more money in tourism than they take from taxpayers.

Crown lands belong to the Crown, not the individual. If the monarchy was dissolved they would become state property. Again there is no proof that a republic would cost tourism.

If money needs to go into the NHS get rid of the stupid number of managers and admin staff and perhaps the politicians can stop giving themselves pay increases.
This is irrelevent to a monarchy.

Finally, i'm not sure if it is actually possible for the government to dissolve the monarchy.

It isn't. But if Cromwell got around it, we can too.

If the monarchy generate so much money, why do they have to steal ours?

We have fought some of the greatest battles that are on record and won them, through all that history and glory we had a King Or Queen.

...except for when we had a Lord Protector. A more accurate statement would have been:

We have fought some of the greatest battles that are on record and won them, through all that history and glory we had sexually transmitted diseases.

The Great Royal Debate: Do we hang them or do we shoot them? :D

"You are Class War, and I claim my five pounds."

We have fought some of the greatest battles that are on record and won them, through all that history and glory we had sexually transmitted diseases.
Which one should we attribute the victory too?

It isn't. But if Cromwell got around it, we can too.
Cromwell fought a war to do so. Is it worth a war to you for the monarchies abolishment? Oh, and it did not take long until people got sick of Oliver and Charles the II came back pretty quick.

Hey people,

here's my view...

My personal opinion of the members of our monarchy not indluded...

The monarchy doesn't, as I percieve things, do any harm to this country, it's international image or the British people. The greatest damage they do is when people get overly excited about this debate and take it too far.

On the other hand the Monarchy does do some good. It's given people in this country a symbol to rally behind, particular to some of those who are part of the armed services. Further more the land marks that the monarchy has created throughout it's time create a very real source of tourism, income and employment for our country.

This is a largely simplified view of the monarchy and it's existance, but this is my first reply in these forums (I'm knew) so I didn't want to jump in too far too fast.

In response to comments on a republic being just as profitable as a monarchy...

Absaloutly, a republic would have the same tourist revenue as a republic would, the history and landmarks would remain history and landmarks. The difference would be that the land would become either state owned, or would be sold to a commerical venture. Either way, the chances are that the revenue would increase, rather than be reduced or even stay the same...

However...

Firstly we would have to remove the monarchy, by political muscle or physical (and it would almost certainly be political, I can't imagine a civil war over this) removing the monarchy would be an long-winded, expensive, time and energy consuming business. There is an argument to be had saying that we're better off running the country and saving pounds, than removing the monarchy and saving pennies.

Secondly, we'd have to put the monarchy somewhere, we couldn't simply strip them of their lands and wealth with a shout of "good luck". For a start they do own their lands and buildings, if we take them what are we but thieves and crimminals? We would have to reimburse them for everything we take from them AND provide them with extra to allow them security for the rest of their lives.

While in theory a republic does look like a long-term better solution, I think the short term cost would be so high that the motivation and political muscle and will power would never manifest itself for long eneough to make it happen. Even if it did the cost could do more harm for ten years afterwards than we gain from a slightly increased revenue

Respectfully,
Ven

Is it worth a war to you for the monarchies abolishment?

One can equally well ask - "Is it worth a war to you for the monarchy's continuation?"

One can equally well ask - "Is it worth a war to you for the monarchies continuation?"
I do not think it would take a war in either case.

"You are Class War, and I claim my five pounds."
Not actually a member (I don't drink enough cider ;) ) but I always thought they had the most amusing slogans.

Cromwell fought a war to do so. Is it worth a war to you for the monarchies abolishment? Oh, and it did not take long until people got sick of Oliver and Charles the II came back pretty quick.
I didn't say that we should have a war, just that getting around this technicality has been got around before.

They waited for him to die first. And for his son to abdicate..... And for no one else to come forward to be Lord Protector.

The French also managed to [effectively] remove the King non-violently. But then he tried to run away, and buggered everything up.

Hey people,

here's my view...

My personal opinion of the members of our monarchy not indluded...

The monarchy doesn't, as I percieve things, do any harm to this country, it's international image or the British people. The greatest damage they do is when people get overly excited about this debate and take it too far.

Do you claim it is pointless to get a new car/computer/etc because the old one works fine?

On the other hand the Monarchy does do some good. It's given people in this country a symbol to rally behind, particular to some of those who are part of the armed services. Further more the land marks that the monarchy has created throughout it's time create a very real source of tourism, income and employment for our country.

Great, lets thank the commisioners, not the present incumbants.
[/QUOTE]

I didn't say that we should have a war, just that getting around this technicality has been got around before.

They waited for him to die first. And for his son to abdicate..... And for no one else to come forward to be Lord Protector.

The French also managed to [effectively] remove the King non-violently. But then he tried to run away, and buggered everything up.
I understand. I do not predict a war in either case.

I also believe no one else liked the Republic system, so they let Charles II come into power.

Well, we all know what happened in the French Revolution, and it was rather messy.

Well, we all know what happened in the French Revolution, and it was rather messy.
After he tried to run away, the radical element used the advantage that it gave them to introduce the Committee of Public Safety.

As I said, it would have been peaceful, but the King buggered it up. The French didn't suddenly go mad one year an kill the king plus several thousand of there country men. The revolution went in stages.

Do you claim it is pointless to get a new car/computer/etc because the old one works fine?
[/QUOTE]


Yes I do argue it's pointless to get a new car/computer/etc if the old one works fine. However there can be advantages to new equipment that the older version doesn't have.

Car's can have cleaner or more efficient engines, cost less to upkeep and repair and be more reliable to run.

Computer's can be more powerfull, more effective as a tool and capable of performing more complicated tasks that the user may requre.



Respectfully,
Ven

Yes I do argue it's pointless to get a new car/computer/etc if the old one works fine. However there can be advantages to new equipment that the older version doesn't have.

Car's can have cleaner or more efficient engines, cost less to upkeep and repair and be more reliable to run.

Computer's can be more powerfull, more effective as a tool and capable of performing more complicated tasks that the user may requre.

A republic is more egalitarian and democratic form of government than a monarchy.

In name I certainly agree, however the United Kingdom doesn't have a monarchy rule. If it did then the Queen would be calling the shots and not the Prime Minsiter, I can't remember exactly the name of the setup we use but it's not far off a republic anyway.

My argument is that we stand to loose more by removing the monarchy than we will gain, certainly for the first ten years or so.

(see my originol post, I edited it shortly after originolly posting because I hadn't finished and sent by accident - silly me)

Respectfully,
Ven

My argument is that we stand to loose more by removing the monarchy than we will gain, certainly for the first ten years or so.


How so? Under a republic the swans and any whales unfortunate enough to be washed up on the shore would belong to the people, rather than the Queen and the Prince of Wales respectively, and that is enough for me.

A republic is more egalitarian and democratic form of government than a monarchy.

Not necessarilly - seeing as how 'republic' just means 'not a monarchy' it also includes fascist dictatorships, Stalinist states, theocracies, et. al.

because the price of removing them would be huge...


Firstly somebody is going to argue that while we can dissolve their soverign rights and power that their homes, castles, palaces, estates, lands etc still do and always will belong to them. If we wish to use these lands as a state-owned source of tourism the goverment, the people, are going to have to pay a massive packet of money to secure it. This is, of course, assuming that the venture is profitable.

Secondly, I'm not so sure it's ethical to suddenly take away from an entire familly their way of life. They've lived all their lives with the belief, knowledge, securtiy and comfort of Royalty. To take that all away in one move is potentially devistating. We have no idea of how an individual would react or survive that.

Respectfully,
Ven

In name I certainly agree, however the United Kingdom doesn't have a monarchy rule. If it did then the Queen would be calling the shots and not the Prime Minsiter,

The Prime Minister calls the shots on behalf of the Queen. By using the Royal Perogative powers. One of the best benefits of a republic is that the royal perogative powers could be devolved to parliament, taking power away from the executive.

I can't remember exactly the name of the setup we use but it's not far off a republic anyway.

Constitutional Monarchy

Firstly we would have to remove the monarchy, by political muscle or physical (and it would almost certainly be political, I can't imagine a civil war over this) removing the monarchy would be an long-winded, expensive, time and energy consuming business. There is an argument to be had saying that we're better off running the country and saving pounds, than removing the monarchy and saving pennies.

Cost is not a good reason to deny democratic rights. We are talking about the system of government, not this weeks groceries.

Secondly, we'd have to put the monarchy somewhere, we couldn't simply strip them of their lands and wealth with a shout of "good luck". For a start they do own their lands and buildings, if we take them what are we but thieves and crimminals? We would have to reimburse them for everything we take from them AND provide them with extra to allow them security for the rest of their lives.

We would not be thieves, crown land is property of the crown, not the individual. Also the queen does, personally, have her own property that she can move into.

While in theory a republic does look like a long-term better solution, I think the short term cost would be so high that the motivation and political muscle and will power would never manifest itself for long eneough to make it happen. Even if it did the cost could do more harm for ten years afterwards than we gain from a slightly increased revenue

System of rule, not groceries. ;)

because the price of removing them would be huge...


How so - exactly what overheads do you foresee when it comes to hanging the last royal with the guts of the last priest?

Secondly, I'm not so sure it's ethical to suddenly take away from an entire familly their way of life.



Secondly, I'm not so sure it's ethical to suddenly take away from an entire familly their way of life. They've lived all their lives with the belief, knowledge, securtiy and comfort of Mining. To take that all away in one move is potentially devistating. We have no idea of how an individual would react or survive that.

It happens to people all the time.

Not necessarilly - seeing as how 'republic' just means 'not a monarchy' it also includes fascist dictatorships, Stalinist states, theocracies, et. al.
I realised that as soon as I posted it.

Firstly, the practical results on the political stage of the change being suggested would unnoticable, you're talking about changing rules nobody ever tries to use anyway, mostly because if the monarchy tried we WOULD kick them out.

Because the relative change would be small then then the high price is even more important. With so little to gain why are we unconcerened about the price of money and time that this would cost?

Respectfully,
Ven

On the subject of Class War

Not actually a member (I don't drink enough cider ;) ) but I always thought they had the most amusing slogans.

I always thought their "Queen Mum - Hurry up and die" was quite catchy.

Firstly somebody is going to argue that while we can dissolve their soverign rights and power that their homes, castles, palaces, estates, lands etc still do and always will belong to them. If we wish to use these lands as a state-owned source of tourism the goverment, the people, are going to have to pay a massive packet of money to secure it. This is, of course, assuming that the venture is profitable.

It belongs to the crown, otherwise the monarchy could give it away in his/her will. No money needed.

Secondly, I'm not so sure it's ethical to suddenly take away from an entire familly their way of life. They've lived all their lives with the belief, knowledge, securtiy and comfort of Royalty. To take that all away in one move is potentially devistating. We have no idea of how an individual would react or survive that.

My heart bleeds for them, honestly it does.

But this happens all the time, but in far worse circumstances. If they cannot cope it is their fault.

How so - exactly what overheads do you foresee when it comes to hanging the last royal with the guts of the last priest?


If you look at my earlier posts you will see the costs and prices I predict.

It happens to people all the time

And that makes it right?

"Hey Saddam killed people all the time, that must make it okay for us to do it!" - not a convincing argument

Firstly, the practical results on the political stage of the change being suggested would unnoticable, you're talking about changing rules nobody ever tries to use anyway, mostly because if the monarchy tried we WOULD kick them out.

Are you talking about the royal perogative? They are used quite a lot, in fact at every reshuffle, nearly every war, when the tax rate is changed (iirc), when a treaty is signed etc. Royal Perogative Powers are significant.

Is it their fault really? Or is the fault of history for letting this continue for so long?

If we're going to remove these people from everything they've known then we need to do it slowly and gently. In it's simplist form we need to rehabillitate people.

Secondly, it may be crown-owned, I don't disagree. What I said was that somebody whould bring up the argument that it's not the people's or goverments to take and wether they're right or wrong they would win, and the price would still have to be paid.

Are you talking about the royal perogative? They are used quite a lot, in fact at every reshuffle, nearly every war, when the tax rate is changed (iirc), when a treaty is signed etc. Royal Perogative Powers are significant.


Royal perogative powers may be significant, and they may be used but their practical implication is fairly minimal. I state, and believe, that the results of nearly all events requiring and using the power of Royal perogative would have been the same had we changed to a republic already.

Respectfully,
Ven

And that makes it right?

It makes taking away the lifestyle the royal family are used to no worse than making a pipefitter redundant, but you don't seem to be arguing that we should assure jobs for life for everyone.

Besides: I'm sure the Royal Family would be able to go into exile if they desired and make a handsome living for themselves appaering on chat shows, endorsing products, opening new buildings and the like. I would not be entirely surprised if other nations in the British Commonwealth would gladly take them.

And that makes it right?

No, but the Royal family is in a better situation to be able to deal with. They will not be left disenfranchised or homeless and starving. Their wealth will not be confiscated, nor will their private holdings. Their life will not be threatened.

Refugees are completely different, so don't compare.

If we're going to remove these people from everything they've known then we need to do it slowly and gently. In it's simplist form we need to rehabillitate people.

Is royalty a mental illness or a crime?

They have the money, if they have the motivation, they can rehabilitate themselves.

What I said was that somebody whould bring up the argument that it's not the people's or goverments to take and wether they're right or wrong they would win, and the price would still have to be paid.

I think the law would win. This is not a matter of opinion, it is fact.

PS. why would they win.

In all bluntness a signifcant part of the royal familly is coddelled to such an extreme as that they may well be incapable of adjusting swiftly and properly to a non-royal life.

And Law should win, yes. I believe in this case the monarchy would be compensated because it's a compromise between kicking them out and keeping them in. If we ever do manage to kick them out they will still have a massive position of support from people within the country and they will apply sufficient pressure for the argument to follow through

Respectfully,
Ven

Royal perogative powers may be significant, and they may be used but their practical implication is fairly minimal.

Cabinet reshuffles are minimal? Going to war is?

I state, and believe, that the results of nearly all events requiring and using the power of Royal perogative would have been the same had we changed to a republic already.


Many republicans are for the royal perogative powers to be devolved to parliament, why wou;d the PM be able to keep them?

In all bluntness a signifcant part of the royal familly is coddelled to such an extreme as that they may well be incapable of adjusting swiftly and properly to a non-royal life.


So we should keep the on the throne because they are less capable than those who do not sit on the throne? That is one truely bizarre argument.

There is little difference between the quality of life of someone with say £10,000,000 and £1,000,000,000. Your argument fails to hold water.

In all bluntness a signifcant part of the royal familly is coddelled to such an extreme as that they may well be incapable of adjusting swiftly and properly to a non-royal life.

They have a lot of money, they will c-list celebs, I hardly think that they would be reduced to working at Tesco's. Being coddelled is not just a phenomeneon in royal household's, it occurs in rich families too. Do you propose they need 'rehabilitation' too?

And Law should win, yes. I believe in this case the monarchy would be compensated because it's a compromise between kicking them out and keeping them in. If we ever do manage to kick them out they will still have a massive position of support from people within the country and they will apply sufficient pressure for the argument to follow through


The arguement doesn't come into it. I hardly imagine a government giving up that much money just because the people say so. Anyway, if the majority of Brits support a republic, then surely they'd know that the monarchy has enough of its own money.