NationStates Jolt Archive

What is to be done with the monarchy?

Obedience. That is what monarchies are for isn't it?

What is to be done with the monarchy?

They should be an exhibit, like a zoo. So basically the same as it is now.

They should be an exhibit, like a zoo. So basically the same as it is now.
Could we put them in with donkeys?

We get rid of your queen, and you get rid of our king. Deal?

We get rid of your queen, and you get rid of our king. Deal?
seems pretty fair to me

They don't have any real powers to rule the country and I can't see a legal way of stealing their lands since they kind of own them. I am in favour of keeping them as a reminder of how our country was formed and as the tourist attraction they have become. It's also nice to have someone less smarmy tan TB acting as a figurehead for the UK.

I'm Canadian. Can I vote?

All can vote

The Queen is awesome. Leave her be.

All can vote
I don't like Charles, and I prefer Harry to William. He is more handsome.

The Queen is awesome. Leave her be.

No can do. She'll have to go for the betterment of the Swedish people.

I don't like Charles, and I prefer Harry to William. He is more handsome.

That's because Harry isn't Charles' son, fortunately.

I have Austrailian citizenship, so i consider myself a member of the commonwelath, and the royal family as a symbol of power and influence that is there to remind the world of our glorious past. I personally think they should all be shot and all the royal palaces be bulldozed and replaced by low income housing.

That's because Harry isn't Charles' son, fortunately.
True?

They don't have any real powers to rule the country and I can't see a legal way of stealing their lands since they kind of own them.

Not really. They own them in the same way that George W. Bush "owns" the White House

I am in favour of keeping them as a reminder of how our country was formed

And how was that? Should we reinstitute Feudalism in Cornwall too, after all, it would remind of how our country was ;), Maybe have an annual full scale mock civil war.

I'm sure it would also attract a lot of tourists.

and as the tourist attraction they have become.

It is doubtful that it is the royals themselves that attract the tourists, but rather the artifacts of there existence (Crown Jewels, various palaces etc.)

It's also nice to have someone less smarmy tan TB acting as a figurehead for the UK.

Britain really does have a lot of people less smarmy then TB.

I don't like Charles, and I prefer Harry to William. He is more handsome.

I think the tabloids prefer him, too. He makes /such/ interesting stories.

Although there may have been similar things about William and I missed them... I dunno.

True?

You decide:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38269000/jpg/_38269492_hewitt300.jpg

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-08/15/xinsrc_5a2d383fcf1e11d7b21c0001030784d9_haryr.jpg http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/features/images/jameshewitt_cad.jpg

True?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38269000/jpg/_38269492_hewitt300.jpg
James Hewitt and Prince Harry

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/ilove/royalty/gallery/340/charles_photo.jpg
Prince Charles.


You decide who he looks more like ;)

You decide:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38269000/jpg/_38269492_hewitt300.jpg

Damn, beaten by a minute :(

Was quite surprised to find that that was the first result on google image search for "James Hewitt" though.

You decide:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38269000/jpg/_38269492_hewitt300.jpg
When I see both pics, I don't know what to decide...
However, if Diana had become pregnant form another man than Charles, I'm sure it would have become known... With all the royal family's tribulations...

When I see both pics, I don't know what to decide...
However, if Diana had become pregnant form another man than Charles, I'm sure it would have become known... With all the royal family's tribulations...

Really?

Depends on how many people know. Could have just been a secret between Diana and Hewitt.

Firstly, the Royal family serves as a monument, if somewhat more ambulatory than the average statue. The upkeep that gets paid via taxes is completely repaid by the tax on just one of the Queens estates. Of course this is not the only reason to maintain the royals. They are the caretakers of the monarchy, and one day the current fad of democracy will collapse and once more we will have a PROPER form of government.

God Save the Queen!

Firstly, the Royal family serves as a monument, if somewhat more ambulatory than the average statue. The upkeep that gets paid via taxes is completely repaid by the tax on just one of the Queens estates. Of course this is not the only reason to maintain the royals. They are the caretakers of the monarchy, and one day the current fad of democracy will collapse and once more we will have a PROPER form of government.

Or, even if one disagrees with the final point - they're a useful safeguard. Not being elected, they are not going to change with the current general political view. Thus, if an extremist party gets into power and tries to pass insane laws, the Monarchy can effectively end that.

At least for a time. The problem would be stopping them being assassinated. It depends on the party, I suppose...

Firstly, the Royal family serves as a monument, if somewhat more ambulatory than the average statue. The upkeep that gets paid via taxes is completely repaid by the tax on just one of the Queens estates.

But that land is Crown land. Not personal property of Elizabeth Windsor.

This is a red herring though, for many republicans, the monarchy questions is above economic profitability.

Of course this is not the only reason to maintain the royals. They are the caretakers of the monarchy, and one day the current fad of democracy will collapse and once more we will have a PROPER form of government.

Ev'rywhere I hear the sound of marching, charging feet, boy
'Cause summer's here and the time is right for fightingin the street boy

Or, even if one disagrees with the final point - they're a useful safeguard. Not being elected, they are not going to change with the current general political view. Thus, if an extremist party gets into power and tries to pass insane laws, the Monarchy can effectively end that.


Define your terms.

The 1945 Labour government could certainly be seen as being "extremist" in the context of the times.

Chances are, that if the monarch ever refuse to give royal assent it will provoke a major constitutional crisis. Either violent or peaceful, depends on other factors. It will be the death throws of the monarchy, not a safe guard of British democracy.

Define your terms.

The 1945 Labour government could certainly be seen as being "extremist" in the context of the times.

Chances are, that if the monarch ever refuse to give royal assent it will provoke a major constitutional crisis. Either violent or peaceful, depends on other factors. It will be the death throws of the monarchy, not a safe guard of British democracy.

Umm, the UK has no constitution, so how can it have a constitutional crisis?

The Queen is awesome. Leave her be.

What has she done for you lately? or ever?

Define your terms.

The 1945 Labour government could certainly be seen as being "extremist" in the context of the times.

Chances are, that if the monarch ever refuse to give royal assent it will provoke a major constitutional crisis. Either violent or peaceful, depends on other factors. It will be the death throws of the monarchy, not a safe guard of British democracy.

I was thinking of the BNP when I wrote it, but there could be people on here who'd argue that, so I didn't put it in.

Let's say a party gets voted in and declares - completely absurd example - that all radio stations are to be brought under direct government control. In a country where the leader is elected by the same process as the government, this would likely be able to pass (barring things like the US Constitution, etc). However, with a monarch, there's at least a chance that they'll say 'No, sorry, not getting passed'.

Whether it works depends on what public opinion is. But if there were very low election turnouts...

Umm, the UK has no constitution, so how can it have a constitutional crisis?

Has no codified Constitutional document, no.

But it has an uncodified constitution made up of various authoritative works, informal philosphical agreements and convetions, such as the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty and important statutes such as the Magna Carta and the Act of Settlement.

Clciky! (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/british_constitution1.htm)
Clicky! mk. II (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0192839756/qid=1119657361/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-2852718-9895207?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)


I was thinking of the BNP when I wrote it, but there could be people on here who'd argue that, so I didn't put it in.

People said similar of the Labour party before they first got a majority government. It would be premature to say that the BNP would destroy British democracy.

Needless to say, I would not enjoy a country with a BNP majority government.

Let's say a party gets voted in and declares - completely absurd example - that all radio stations are to be brought under direct government control. In a country where the leader is elected by the same process as the government, this would likely be able to pass (barring things like the US Constitution, etc). However, with a monarch, there's at least a chance that they'll say 'No, sorry, not getting passed'.

In all likelyness, it would not even get that far.

For one, it would need to get through a committee making sure that the proposed legitslation was legal, then through the commons, then through the Lords.

Plus various other things. But those are the basics.

As I said before though, no matter what the circumstances are, a monarch not giving royal assent would probably result in a major constitutional crisis.

Whether it works depends on what public opinion is. But if there were very low election turnouts...

I don't think so. It provides ammunition, rather then nessaserily trigger civil war.

I'm Canadian. Can I vote?
canada has the same queen, I.e. the queen of canada...

No can do. She'll have to go for the betterment of the Swedish people.

I don't know why but reading that seriously made me crack up laughing.

Good one Fass.

What has she done for you lately? or ever?

The Queen Mom had a nice chat with my father while he was in Medical School, and recently the Queen came to Alberta and Saskatchewan (that's in Canada BTW) to celebrate their centenial. Since my entire family is British citizens living in Canada we went up to see her and Prince Philip chatted with my mom. (her loud scottish accent probably gave away her heratige)


I love the idea of the royals, I don't see why people would want to get rid of them. Not to impressed with the OP's poll, you could have tried to keep your obvious bias out of the poll.

Did you know that the Queen of England recieves the largest sum of European Agricultural Subsidies? Those subsidies are meant for farmers who, without them, would go bankrupt.
The Queen of the Netherlands is the richest woman in the world, according to some estimates. While the poorest people in the Netherlands are getting more and more in debt because of government decisions, the royal family helped out by allowing the government to pay them (that is the entire family) one million euros less this year.
Things might just have gotten a little out of hand, don't you think?

Keep the Queen otherwise you would have to waste money to change the currency, stamps, seal, and national anthem.

God Save the Queen.

Me gas whatsa mesa sayin? :D I'm American and I'm supporting the Queen? Rut ro.

Anyway, keep the Queen. I love watching the ceremonies.

I love the idea of the royals, I don't see why people would want to get rid of them. Not to impressed with the OP's poll, you could have tried to keep your obvious bias out of the poll.

Is it not best to have his bias right out there in front so we know where he is coming from?

Keep the Queen otherwise you would have to waste money to change the currency, stamps, seal, and national anthem.

Meh. We can just print new stamps, but keep the current ones until they are all used up. Same with the currency etc.

But the National Anthem is just horrible. If we are going to keep with the nation state (which we so obviously are), we really should change it. To anything.

Do-wah-diddy anyone?

Everyone at least knows the chorus


There she was just a-walkin' down the street, singin'
[Come on everyone you know you want to]
"Do wah diddy diddy dum diddy do"
Snappin' her fingers and shufflin' her feet, singin'
"Do wah diddy diddy dum diddy do"
....


Just me? Meh. :(


Anyway, keep the Queen. I love watching the ceremonies.

Can we make a deal then. If we ever get rid of her she can move into your house and the local militia can all dress up as those redcoated guards and you can watch the changing of the guard everyday :)

If you want to preserve the monarchy, why not dip them in hot wax and turn Buckingham Palace into a wax museum. :D

But the National Anthem is just horrible. If we are going to keep with the nation state (which we so obviously are), we really should change it. To anything.

Either http://www.sterlingtimes.org/music_themes20.htm or give individual anthems to each of the constituent nations.

Meh. We can just print new stamps, but keep the current ones until they are all used up. Same with the currency etc.

Still going to cost money, tax dollar money! :D

But the National Anthem is just horrible. If we are going to keep with the nation state (which we so obviously are), we really should change it. To anything.

Do-wah-diddy anyone?

Everyone at least knows the chorus


There she was just a-walkin' down the street, singin'
[Come on everyone you know you want to]
"Do wah diddy diddy dum diddy do"
Snappin' her fingers and shufflin' her feet, singin'
"Do wah diddy diddy dum diddy do"
....


Just me? Meh. :(

She looked good (looked good)
She looked fine (looked fine)
She looked good she looked fine and I nearly lost my mind.

Before I knew it she was walking next to me singing Do Wah diddy diddy dum diddy do
Holdin' my hand just as natural as can be singing Do wah diddy diddy dum diddy do

:D

Can we make a deal then. If we ever get rid of her she can move into your house and the local militia can all dress up as those redcoated guards and you can watch the changing of the guard everyday :)

Good luck with that. I doubt they'll do it because we don't like redcoats! :D

Either http://www.sterlingtimes.org/music_themes20.htm or give individual anthems to each of the constituent nations.

Australia= Australiafare
Canada=O Canada
UK=God Save The Queen

Don't know what the rest of the commonwealth national anthems. So are you talking about Wales, Scottland, and Northern Ireland?

So are you talking about Wales, Scottland, and Northern Ireland?

Yeah. Possibly only as a ruse to get Blake's Jerusalem in use as a national anthem. Unfortunately its explicit mention of England's green and pleasent land rules out its application as a UK national anthem.

I don't see the point of getting rid of the monarchy and doing nothing else. It seems a really weird thing to suggest. I rather think that we ought to keep the monarchy until such time as the 'national' anthem begins, "arise, you prisoners of starvation..."

Hmm...This week we found that the monarchy cost the British Taxpayer 61p each.

So its a Yorkie bar and 16p change, or The queen?

(Considering Im not a taxpyer, only 14!) Ill go with Queenie thanks

Hmm...This week we found that the monarchy cost the British Taxpayer 61p each.

So its a Yorkie bar and 16p change, or The queen?

(Considering Im not a taxpyer, only 14!) Ill go with Queenie thanks

Don't be so sure that you're not counted as a taxpayer for these purposes...

Cost of royal family: £36.7m
Alleged cost per 'taxpayer': £0.61 (source BBC News)

36,700,000/0.61 = 60163934

United Kingdom — Population: 60,441,457 (source CIA world factbook)

So, according to this there are approximately 300,000 of the UK population who aren't counted as taxpayers. Looks to me like someone somewhere has been fluffing the calculation in order to make the actual financial support the Royal Family gets from the people seem somewhat less ludicrous.


******

Aside from which, the fact that not only are we considered as subjects rather than citizens, but also have to pay for the fucking privilege is an abomination.

Even so, if there were 25 million out of 60 million taxpayers in the Uk (And there are certainly more)the queen would cost us about £1.50 (about $2.50-75) a year. I think the royals are worth more than that.

I think the royals are worth more than that.

Tell you what, you can pay for my share as well.

Care to explain why you think they are worth anything?

What is to be done with the monarchy?

A modern reform that is happening as we speak...im pretty sure that when Prince William becomes King people will complain about the monarchy less...for the money they cost 61p to each tax payer...if that was reduced to 50p by 2010 as is proposed...whats the problem?..they have no real power...mean that we dont have to choose a president from our rediculous political system which offers no real choice to the electorate...they attract huge amounts of tourism per year especially from the states...and are a part of what it means to be British...for most Britons anyway...

Australia= Australiafare
Canada=O Canada
UK=God Save The Queen

Don't know what the rest of the commonwealth national anthems. So are you talking about Wales, Scottland, and Northern Ireland?

The UK's should be 'Land of hope and Glory' or 'Jerusalem'

*considers making a "What song shall I sing while dancing on the Queen's grave?" thread*

A long walk off a short pier would be a good start. The Bolshies (God Blast them) did things the right way. You can't leave them hanging around to be used as a touchstone for some wave of ridiculous royalist sentiment. High-ho, its off to the firing range we go.

I hate seeing my tax dollars going to support all those intermnible Royal visits here in Canada. Useless, the whole lot of them.

Australia= Australiafare
Canada=O Canada
UK=God Save The Queen

Don't know what the rest of the commonwealth national anthems. So are you talking about Wales, Scottland, and Northern Ireland?

That would be "Advance Australia Fair". :p

Not like it matters though. Very few of us ever bother to learn it. We honestly know "Waltzing Matilda" better. lol

That would be "Advance Australia Fair". :p

Not like it matters though. Very few of us ever bother to learn it. We honestly know "Waltzing Matilda" better. lol

Thanks for the correction :)

Meh, the monarchy is an essential part of British history and culture...and this is coming from an American!

Meh, the monarchy is an essential part of British history and culture...and this is coming from an American!

yes but dont most americans love the monarchy anyway?

yes but dont most americans love the monarchy anyway?


Not according to the Revolutionary War :D

Not according to the Revolutionary War :D

haha fair point

Not according to the Revolutionary War :D


From the number of swooning American tourists who visit Canada anytime the Queen comes here, in order to catch a glimpse of her, I'd say there's a fair number who do love our monarchy.

Tourists, and there you have it, thats why the queen is so valuable. Japanese and American tourists come to Britain to see our famous queen.

Why go to palaces at versailles when you can go to buckingham palace and see the real deal?

Ive always wondered, why is Buckingham palace no where near buckinghamshire.

Just leave them, maybe shut it down after Elizabeth II's reign.

....

Why go to palaces at versailles when you can go to buckingham palace and see the real deal?
....

Because you're actually allowed in the palace, and its gardens and grounds (which are much better than those at Buck House)?

I don't like Charles, and I prefer Harry to William. He is more handsome.

harry is a prat who thinks dressing up as a nazi is funny

Tourists, and there you have it, thats why the queen is so valuable. Japanese and American tourists come to Britain to see our famous queen.

It is the artifacts of monarchy that bring the tourists, not the monarchy itself.

Why go to palaces at versailles when you can go to buckingham palace and see the real deal?

Because it is nicer?

Meh, the monarchy is an essential part of British history and culture

So?

That's not a reason to keep the institution of monarchy. Should we bring back slavery in the US because "It was an essential part of American history and culture?"

...and this is coming from an American!

Huh, what? :confused: