NationStates Jolt Archive

I would just like to know what the General feeling is amoung the Brits about the Monarchy. The Monarchy hasn't exactly had the best press at the moment, with the Charles and Camillia senario, the Nazi Prince would has to cheat to get a D and E at school, and other such things. So what should Britain do? Go Republican, reform the system or even give more power back to the Monarchy?

Keep the queen to keep the tourists happy and send the rest of those parasites of to the acid mines (or something bad...). I totally object to tax payer's money being used to pay for some toffs private jet and golf trips.

fuck tourism, our economy can survive without it. get rid of them all - hereditary accession sucks. unfair, unequal, illogical. get rid of it.

More power to the throne! More power to the throne!

You've mentioned one prince who is, well... a bit dim and another who would have been traditionally sent to France to do all his carousing on the spoils of a successful chevauchee. Hardly the best examples of the monarchy, I'll admit, but roughly par for the course if you check out history.

And also par for the course is Prince William, who appears to understand the word 'duty' and has also made it clear that he doesn't want to 'let things get out of his control' (much polishing of loyalist weaponry based on this statement :D at least by me). To be honest, considering the state that democracy has led this country into, I'd much rather have a ruler who can make economic plans that bring benefits longer than five years and who will be around long enough to see the benefits of an enlightened environmental policy. Think about it - half the problems with modern politicians is that their solutions only extend as far as the next election and their policies are geared towards popularity with voters, meaning that radically stupid statements can be made. For instance, simultaneous promises to lower taxes AND increase public services :headbang: .

Since the vast majority of the population has been dumb enough to think this a reasonable statement, I think we can prove the Lewis Argument - Power Corrupts, Democracy is Power to the people... <smacks democratic poodle upside the head>. I really don't think the mob deserves to lead itself anymore, so it's only right we should get the vote of history rather than the television generation.

Keep the queen to keep the tourists happy and send the rest of those parasites of to the acid mines (or something bad...). I totally object to tax payer's money being used to pay for some toffs private jet and golf trips.

I completely agree with that. Get rid of them, other than the Queen. She makes us more money than she spends.

Keep the queen to keep the tourists happy and send the rest of those parasites of to the acid mines (or something bad...). I totally object to tax payer's money being used to pay for some toffs private jet and golf trips.

firstly there is nothing rong with toffs, without them whare would we be? we would not be british would we!
although they are a bunch of free loaders but soon enough king will, will hopefully show a good side to a monarchry

More power to the throne! More power to the throne!

You've mentioned one prince who is, well... a bit dim and another who would have been traditionally sent to France to do all his carousing on the spoils of a successful chevauchee. Hardly the best examples of the monarchy, I'll admit, but roughly par for the course if you check out history.

And also par for the course is Prince William, who appears to understand the word 'duty' and has also made it clear that he doesn't want to 'let things get out of his control' (much polishing of loyalist weaponry based on this statement :D at least by me). To be honest, considering the state that democracy has led this country into, I'd much rather have a ruler who can make economic plans that bring benefits longer than five years and who will be around long enough to see the benefits of an enlightened environmental policy. Think about it - half the problems with modern politicians is that their solutions only extend as far as the next election and their policies are geared towards popularity with voters, meaning that radically stupid statements can be made. For instance, simultaneous promises to lower taxes AND increase public services :headbang: .

Since the vast majority of the population has been dumb enough to think this a reasonable statement, I think we can prove the Lewis Argument - Power Corrupts, Democracy is Power to the people... <smacks democratic poodle upside the head>. I really don't think the mob deserves to lead itself anymore, so it's only right we should get the vote of history rather than the television generation.


i agree with most of that :D

You could replace the rest of the Royal family with cardboard cutouts and stand them on the Balcony of Buckingham Palace!

Hmmm... maybe I should have done a poll with this thread, didn't think of that at the time..ah well.

Well if we do give power to the throne the economy will go down the toilet, and bring the rest of the country with it. I don't really trust a family whoes members struggle to get a D and an E with one of the largest economies in the world. Charles will probably go on some war in France, trying to regain the lost territories, spend lavishly on Camillia and other silly things. The Queen would splash out on making Corgie Palaces, Corgies would deserve a bow and stuff. And we wouldn't have our beloved British humour which takes the piss of the Monarchy! Think of the Children! Maybe a little more power would be good to stop nutcases like Tony Blair, since the Conservatives are not doing the best job to be polite.

Hells bells, dude, I never advocated the Camilla get her hands on the Treasury! If I have my way Camilla won't become queen at all!

*Expansive arm gestures cause home-made pipebomb to slide out of sleeve*

Ahem... anyway...

I don't advocate a fully autocratic state. Hell, I guess elections might still be a good idea, for the prime minister at least. The point is that he should become exactly that - merely a prime minister. Simply adjutant to the throne. The cabinet, the commons, all that can remain in place, because obviously view need to be debated and theoretical policy prepared, but ultimately it should serve merely as an advisory body to the King (William the First! I hope...) to guide decisions into the eminently feasible and realistic. The key thing is that decisions and major policy objectives should remain firmly in the hands of one person, bound by duty to the Crown and to the land by fetters of history.

I envisage (teary eyed vision) a dynasty totally predicated on the concept of duty to the Country, brought up to be disciplined and frugal in personal expenditure and fully cognisant that the future of the nation rests on their shoulders. Far from being a blessing, it'd probably be viewed more as a curse! But at least it's better than having a gang of faceless party members selecting the candidate with the most disarming (or disturbing) smile as the leader of Britain.

And the great thing about a monarchy is that there is only one person accountable, with one neck. Ineffective monarchs have to face far worse consequences than merely not being re-elected and retirement with a pension...

Nazi prince my arse! He was in fancy dress and he's a teenager. Idiocy is practically obligatory.

The British tabloids would rather complain a pair of divorcees getting married when they are clearly in love than actually go and find real news. Nobody would give a rat's testicle if they were anybody else. Give them a break, who cares what they do as they have no real power anyway, and besides, the world already hates us anyway. How can the royal family make us look any worse than blair has.

Get rid off them all; they're economic pensioners of history.

I don't buy the tourism argument: people come to see historical sights and interesting buildings. Nobody gets to see the Queen.

People don't seem to understand how a Monarchistic Government works. The King/Queen doesn't just rule the country themselves. That would be chaotic and stupid. They use(d) a council - the Privy Council in medieval England etc, no idea what it was called elsewhere. The Privy Council was responsible for guiding the Monarch and helping them to make the best decision. Thus, if you have a King who struggles to get a failing grade, who cares, because people who know what they are doing are telling him what to do. Sure, the Privy Council used to be made up of hereditary Nobles, but what if you recreate it with scholars and people who are the most intelligent people in their field of expertise?

You may say that this doesn't change the fact that the average citizen has no say...well, it does. England has had the House of Commons for centuries. It was traditionally a place where representatives of the lower classes from all across England could come to present their grievances to the King/Queen, and have their fair say in Government. The advantage of this House of Commons is that it had no parties - there was no factional competition like we see in politics today. People would simply present the problems which plagued the common man, and the Government would respond by acting to sort the problem. Furthermore, the lower classes had even more access to Government in that they often petitioned the Government. It happened before just about every rebellion I have studied. And they Government - in many cases, the Privy Council, the highest Government body in the country, exception of the Monarch - would actually read them, unlike nowadays where you can never know whether a politician is going to pay any attention or not. The Monarchistic countries were rarely autocratic, they in fact listened to the average man a whole lot more than our current Government does.

On the other hand, as previously pointed out, democratic Governments are wracked with inconsistancies because the parties care more about popularity and staying in power than pleasing the country and its people. They make a lot of policies because they think it will win them more votes, or because it suits them and not the people. And then their policies are reversed at the next election, when their main competitor takes power, which means the country is frequently going backwards and forwards and makes only minor steps in the right direction. And just think about what the Government would spend money on if they got rid of the Monarchy...I put good odds on them wasting it on something completely worthless.

PS: I know I am largely referring to England in this, but that is because the area of English history I really know about (being the Tudor period) is before England and Scotland were united.

I hate to simplify things to this degreem but the monarchy is clearly contrary to equality. Confiscate all their ill gotten booty, chuck them on a council estate and leave them to it. Replace the lords with a second house that reflects the cultural, political and economic make up of the country and repeal all the titles that have been given out.

<snip>

Hear Hear

Equality is a non-existant ideal that singularly is unimplementable in a real world situation. The very concept is based on nonsense. :upyours:

GO MONARCHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D

Equality is a non-existant ideal that singularly is unimplementable in a real world situation. The very concept is based on nonsense. :upyours:

GO MONARCHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D

Equality is quite achievable. I'm not talking about making everyone the same.

If we're going to be elitist, there are much better critera for picking an elite than whos womb one fell out of.

In the sense of running the country, the Royal Family already has little to no real power. They "rule" over Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in name only as it is and they don't even have the final authority in Great Britain and Northern Ireland as it stands now. Even though technically, the countries listed are subjects of the Crown, I doubt anyone in his right mind considers any of them to be anything less than independent nations. I doubt the Queen would even care about what John Howard does more than Bill Clinton might have.

Perhaps some people would be happier without a King or Queen. But people in some other parts of the world are still interested in what's going on with the Royals. They're still rather popular over here in the U.S.

Remind me why we should give money (not inheritence etc, but on a daily basis) or power to people because they're born into a particular family? :confused:

Remind me why we should give money (not inheritence etc, but on a daily basis) or power to people because they're born into a particular family? :confused:

The same reason we should consider The Sun a newspaper.

I am for the Monarchy. Unfairness and unequality makes the world an interesting place, it'd be boring if we weren't all the same. I actually think Britain would be far better off and interesting with a monarchy ruling with supreme power, but maybe with a puppet Parliament. Parliament are damn boring.
As for the "too much of the country's money gets spent on the Monarchy", surely the figure cannot be so large that it would actually make a difference to the country's economy, so I have no quibble with the money that gets spent on them.
I agree actually with the Monarchy's political views (at least the ones they express in public), especially Prince Charles who is apparantly against Political Correctness. I support them mainly because they're a traditional British fox hunting, pheasent shooting, media hating family. And I am glad Prince Harry had the balls to wear a Swastika at a party that the media had no right to be at.

The Monarchy have a lineage that stretches over one thousand years, it is part of culture, less now now than in the past, but still an integral part of Britain as a nation.

It saddens me that the Royal Family now have little or no power in British politics, they couldn't even stop that misguided, misinformed, idiotic ban of Fox Hunting :(

Democracy doesn't work, the majority of people in every democratic country are far too stupid to run themselves let alone be allowes to have influence. Democracy spreads stupidity because it is the only way it can survive.

The British Monarchy is a tradition that goes back well over a thousand years - abolishing it would see the end of something that links our country and its government of today with centuries and centuries of history. Americans are particularly fascinated with the monarchy simply because it is several times older than their country. The monarchy is living history, an ancient institution. It costs money, but so does the upkeep of monuments like the Tower of London and Westminster Abbey - prime riverside sites that would make highly profitable office space or charming homeless housing (depending on your priorities). The monarchy might not behave itself, but if it did or if it was abolished, the Sun might have to start running political stories to fill up its pages...and I think that would put an unfair mental strain on the editors and jourmalists.

I would support to the Royals to the end of the Earth and their sovereign rights.

If they want it, they can have it. I really don't care about the British monarchy.