NationStates Jolt Archive

While anyone is free to post their opinion, I'd really like to hear how U.K.ers and Commonwealth folk feel about the constitutional monarchy.

The poll question is straight-yes or straight-no on purpose. If your response is more complicated than that, just please tell us and forget the vote. Thanks!

The monarchy should be kept as a self funding tourist attraction.

Oh and Britian should have a governor to perform the duties of the crown when the crown has had a bit too much sherry or a bit too much inbreeding.

Opinion from Canada, eh.

To my knowledge, the royal family has no real power. Its sole purpose is ceremonial. That being said, scrapping the monarchy would mean saving literally billions of dollars, taking into account how much all of the governor-generals and lieutenant-governors spend alongside the crown itself.

I'm in the US so don't havea vote. But there seems to be a need among Americans to have a leader to look up to that is "glamorous". People have such a desire for this that they vote for it over intelligence. That is how we got Reagan and Bush2. People didn't vote on policy, they voted on image. The created image swayed more people than their words.

I think the Commonwelth to Nations has the best of both. In the Royal Family they have people that can serve to fill the need for glamor. Then they can vote for people to run the country based on intelligence and policy.

Oh yes. Because all of your presidents are glamorous.
Can't you vote because "No, we're not a commonwealth, we're a free country"?
Mmm.
Monarchy OUT. It's useless.

Oh yes. Because all of your presidents are glamorous.
Can't you vote because "No, we're not a commonwealth, we're a free country"?
Mmm.
Monarchy OUT. It's useless.
I am an American, but listening to some Brits talk I've gathered that the Monarchy only sucks up money from Britain and serves little other purpous.

I'm from Canada, and personally, I'm for keeping the monarchy. Sure it costs a whole lot of money, but it's nothing we can't afford. We lose much more money in bad government administration then through the governor-general, and lieutenant-goverors.

The practical use of the monarchy = 0 However, I see it kind of like the same way I look at an old monument. It's a thing of the past, but it's socially and historically relevant to who I am.

Plus, a little something for Canadians, there is a near impossibility to get rid of the monarchy constitutionally... We have a messed up legal system...

as a resident of australia i do get a vote (yay). i quite like the idea of having a monarch, sure beats our governor-general. they don't serve any useful purpose, but they are a nice symbol and it's not like the governor general does very much (yes, i do know what he does)

Plus, a little something for Canadians, there is a near impossibility to get rid of the monarchy constitutionally... We have a messed up legal system...

Right, Queen Elizabeth II is officially Canada's head of state, isn't she?

When this is over, I'm curious to see the ratio of U.K. to the ratio of Commonwealth who are for/against the monarchy.

I am an American, but listening to some Brits talk I've gathered that the Monarchy only sucks up money from Britain and serves little other purpous.
That might be what they say but the truth is another matter.
And as for the money the queen suck up from Canada I think you will find it is in the scheme of things, very little. And how long without crown land existing do you think it would take for the old trees of BC and other places to be logged. Have you seen the difference between the forrests north and south of the border as seen from the air or satalite?
There are a lot of people who want change for changes sake with out any vision of a better way. May people just like to knock tradition. For me, if you haven't got a better one and mine aint broken I'll stick with it.
But I'm sure one day we will slip into a more corrupt and power hungry system such as the US. Because that system is sooooo much better.

Opinion from the States, here.

I think the Monarchy serves a purpose. They can take actions and express opinions which would be imprudent or even ineffective for the elected officals to do. They can make state visits for political reasons without having to delve too deeply into policy, keeping foreign leaders and the media happy. They can also serve as distractions from the business of government. Celebrities (and natural disasters, and wars, and brain dead women) serve similar functions here in the states. They also lend a certain air of romance to the nation...the royals, I mean. Plus, you get to have pop stars turned into knights! Neat! We get to sort-of-honor athletes who win major championships, and large corporate donors.

Is a monarchy necessary? I don't think so. Is it useful? Like most things, yes, it serves a purpose. And unless it is found to be detrimental, fiscally nonviable, or just too MUCH of a distraction, then why lose it? Plus, I've been told that when I shave, I look like Prince William. That means that one day, I'll look like a king. If I can convince him to grow a beard, I will be set.

My non-vote is for keeping it. Thanks for yer time, yo.

300 years too late:

Bring on the republic!!!
No more House of Commons - A forum (PR elected) with a weaker prime minister
No more house of Lords - A senate (constituency elected) instead
No more Queen - A non executive president with the ability to disolve parliament.
A Parliament for England, on a par with the Scotish Parliament and the Norther Irish and Welsh Assemblies.

Viva La Republic - Commonwealther living in Britain.

While anyone is free to post their opinion, I'd really like to hear how U.K.ers and Commonwealth folk feel about the constitutional monarchy.

The poll question is straight-yes or straight-no on purpose. If your response is more complicated than that, just please tell us and forget the vote. Thanks!You could have put an option for us non-commies (derived from Commonwealth) to choose :(
Anyway, I say keep it. It means less German nobility that we Germans would have to feed. :D

I know this sounds like a contradiction, but here goes nothing.

I'm Scottish, liberal, was raised Catholic and I'm pro-monarchy. Why? 'Cause they're cool. History is cool <3

I'm Australian.

I don't have anything against the British royal family but I would like to see the Queen removed as our head of state. We don't have any ties with the UK except for history now so its time we cut the last apron string and stood on our own two feet as a totally independant nation.

If it happens though, I would very strongly support our new head of state being someone voted in by the people, not another governer-general "job for the boys" type deal.

You could have put an option for us non-commies (derived from Commonwealth) to choose :(
Anyway, I say keep it. It means less German nobility that we Germans would have to feed. :D

Hey, I can't vote either, and I MADE the poll. :D

And what do you mean by "German" nobility? I know for a fact that the current Queen is from the House of Windsor, which obviously has nothing German about it, and is obviously not just a complete name change in order to escape association with the German language as hostilities developed between the two nations in the early twentieth century. ;)

Actually, you know, that kind of mind frame is what changed St. Petersburg to 'Petrograd'. Maybe all England needs is a Communist revolution to take over the country before collapsing in on itself; then the royal house can go back to a German-sounding name.

While anyone is free to post their opinion, I'd really like to hear how U.K.ers and Commonwealth folk feel about the constitutional monarchy.

The poll question is straight-yes or straight-no on purpose. If your response is more complicated than that, just please tell us and forget the vote. Thanks!

Asking on a forum dominated by socialists and people with left-leanings isn't going to get you an objective view on how the UK population as a whole views the monarchy.

tourists would come anyway (especially if we could totally open up all the royal castles n shit into real tourist destinations), they cost too much (a president could do the same "job" for far, far less), and i don't like the principle of heredity above all. get em out.

Asking on a forum dominated by socialists and people with left-leanings isn't going to get you an objective view on how the UK population as a whole views the monarchy.

Yet, strangely enough, right after you posted this the polling was at 8/8 for the U.K. and 10/9 (in favor of the monarchy) for the Commonwealth. I interpret that as meaning that either the idea of a royal family is generally supported, even if many have qualifications.

I should have put an option for: "Yes, keep it. In fact, let's dissolve Parliament and go absolutist again!"

I live in New Zealand so i get a vote :D

As one person said earlier many people like to knock tradition and believing the Queen to serve no useful purpose basically figure she has to go.
However I would argue that the Queen and Monarchy particularly in Britain serve to make the political and social scene a bit more interesting.

For many of us outside Britain she is an instantly recognizable symbol of what Britain is and was, the Queen doesn't do anything wrong exactly so why get ride of all the history in favour of an impersonal, equally disfunctional but far less interesting republic?

I dunno about you but President vs Queen, no contest

While anyone is free to post their opinion, I'd really like to hear how U.K.ers and Commonwealth folk feel about the constitutional monarchy.

The poll question is straight-yes or straight-no on purpose. If your response is more complicated than that, just please tell us and forget the vote. Thanks!

Here in a commonwealth country, it's nice to have ties to the past. Although Charles should be skipped as King.... :p

tourists would come anyway (especially if we could totally open up all the royal castles n shit into real tourist destinations), they cost too much (a president could do the same "job" for far, far less), and i don't like the principle of heredity above all. get em out.

A president? Oh no. As an American, I love my country, but the one thing I hate is how strange the title 'president' sounds to me. And 'secretaries' instead of 'ministers'. These guys aren't taking notes; they're administering!

I'm just so glad that the U.K. had a larger sphere of influence than the U.S.; Latin American countries may go by 'Presidente' like us, but most other democracies have a 'Prime Minister', or 'Premier', or 'Chancellor', or something less boring (even if they do also have a president along with it).

And how dull is 'Vice President'? I mean, come on. Were we even trying?

Yet, strangely enough, right after you posted this the polling was at 8/8 for the U.K. and 10/9 (in favor of the monarchy) for the Commonwealth. I interpret that as meaning that either the idea of a royal family is generally supported, even if many have qualifications.

I should have put an option for: "Yes, keep it. In fact, let's dissolve Parliament and go absolutist again!"

Perhaps so, but the fact is that support is far stronger for the monarchy in the country at large than it will ever be on this forum. And I expect that at least a couple of Americans and other foreign anti-Monarchy folks will have sneaked in a vote or two to try and sway the poll in their favour. What I'm saying is, take whatever results you get out of this with a pinch of salt, is all.

Perhaps so, but the fact is that support is far stronger for the monarchy in the country at large than it will ever be on this forum. And I expect that at least a couple of Americans and other foreign anti-Monarchy folks will have sneaked in a vote or two to try and sway the poll in their favour. What I'm saying is, take whatever results you get out of this with a pinch of salt, is all.

Agreed. It's my own fault for not putting an option for us 'outsiders'.

Hey, I can't vote either, and I MADE the poll. :D

And what do you mean by "German" nobility? I know for a fact that the current Queen is from the House of Windsor, which obviously has nothing German about it, and is obviously not just a complete name change in order to escape association with the German language as hostilities developed between the two nations in the early twentieth century. ;)

Actually, you know, that kind of mind frame is what changed St. Petersburg to 'Petrograd'. Maybe all England needs is a Communist revolution to take over the country before collapsing in on itself; then the royal house can go back to a German-sounding name.Well, Saxe-Coburg is a German-sounding name because it actually is German... Except for some reason we've managed to export them everywhere. The former King of Bulgaria is a Saxe-Coburg. The Romanovs were German. One of the few of European royalty that was untouched by Germans was the Greek one. They got a Bavarian Prince :D (Which is where the colors of the Greek flag come from).

A president? Oh no. As an American, I love my country, but the one thing I hate is how strange the title 'president' sounds to me. And 'secretaries' instead of 'ministers'. These guys aren't taking notes; they're administering!

I'm just so glad that the U.K. had a larger sphere of influence than the U.S.; Latin American countries may go by 'Presidente' like us, but most other democracies have a 'Prime Minister', or 'Premier', or 'Chancellor', or something less boring (even if they do also have a president along with it).

And how dull is 'Vice President'? I mean, come on. Were we even trying?
yeah i can't say i like the title of "President" either, but we already have 'Prime Minister' (and a Chancellor), and besides, its better than "Queen" :rolleyes:

lets have a new title... i think Grand Marshmallow sums everything up about being the head of state very nicely :P

Perhaps so, but the fact is that support is far stronger for the monarchy in the country at large than it will ever be on this forum. And I expect that at least a couple of Americans and other foreign anti-Monarchy folks will have sneaked in a vote or two to try and sway the poll in their favour. What I'm saying is, take whatever results you get out of this with a pinch of salt, is all.If you make it a public poll, you can always check on who voted.

I live in australia, and i don't really care one way or the other, they're several 1000 Km away. :p
But if the GG were to dismiss the government (like in 1975 with Gough Whitlam), I might change my mind.

I like the monarchy. It should be kept. Besides being an important tie to history, it does add "Pomp, and Circumstance" to the most mundane things. Like posted above, it's very exciting to pledge allegience to Her Majesty! I've done it before for a Gov't job, and would do it again in an instant.

However I have to agree, I wish it funded itself a bit more...

:cool: :D

yeah i can't say i like the title of "President" either, but we already have 'Prime Minister' (and a Chancellor), and besides, its better than "Queen" :rolleyes:

lets have a new title... i think Grand Marshmallow sums everything up about being the head of state very nicely :P

Passivocalia's head of state has the title Master Guardian of the Passive Voice, though it's generally a post-script title due to its length. Perhaps if England switches to a Grammatical Protectorate anytime soon... though I envision that sort of thing as more likely to happen in France than anywhere else.

I'm English, and I think we should keep the monarchy. OK, some of them are wankers like Prince Harry who need to be shot, but for the most part they're not too bad. Plus, how many people here know who the German President is? Sure, we know who their Chancellor is, but no one can remember their head of state's name. That's why I think we should keep the monarchy, at under £1 a person each year or so, I think it works out pretty good value for money for something that gives us international recognition.

Plus, how many people here know who the German President is?I've been shooed off the stairs of my university library by his bodyguards when he walked by, and his name is Horst Köhler :D
Sure, we know who their Chancellor is, but no one can remember their head of state's name.I'm pretty sure if he showed up to a party dressed as a Na.. inappropriate historical figure, he'd be as well known as the queen. (And come on! The Queen's been around much longer than a German President's stay in office. There's much more time to get to know her ;) )

(And come on! The Queen's been around much longer than a German President's stay in office. There's much more time to get to know her ;) )
besides, i wonder how many of these potential tourists actually know the name of the queen (other than just "the queen")?

i fom england and all tho the monarchy dont really have any power any more i think they should stay coz its part of our history, its all patrotic now but its a british symble.

interesting poll results. nearly equal across the board.

besides, i wonder how many of these potential tourists actually know the name of the queen (other than just "the queen")?I wonder how many people actually know that Germany has a president, for that matter (or a Bundestagspräsident, who actually outranks the Chancellor)... :p

I wonder how many people actually know that Germany has a president, for that matter (or a Bundestagspräsident, who actually outranks the Chancellor)... :p
ooh i knew, mememememe! *puts up hand*

but then half my family is german, so i have no excuse not to know :P

ooh i knew, mememememe! *puts up hand*

but then half my family is german, so i have no excuse not to know :PYou know, as a staffer in Boy Scout Summer Camp in Germany (Boy Scouts of America) I asked around whether the kids there actually knew who ran the country they lived in (none of these lived in the US, these were mainly military kids). The results were shocking: The only ones that knew who ruled the country they were in were generally those with a parent of the nationality of that country! :eek:

I'd much rather have a monarch as our head of state than some ambitious politician. I don't like politicians.

I am part English and clearly we should keep the monarchy but stop this silly family line which causes them to be ineffective. We should resort back to the time when the Wittan choose then next king or queen due to their ability to rule well. Thus a group of people seperate from the government and with the British interest in heart should choose dunno all the details but that would be cool. Also Knights of the realm should be seen to protect the monarchy and continually serve their country doing more than just specilising in their fields. :sniper:

You know, as a staffer in Boy Scout Summer Camp in Germany (Boy Scouts of America) I asked around whether the kids there actually knew who ran the country they lived in (none of these lived in the US, these were mainly military kids). The results were shocking: The only ones that knew who ruled the country they were in were generally those with a parent of the nationality of that country! :eek:
sounds like typical americans ;) ;)
(j/k) (or am i?)

I am a completely loyal British subject. Indeed, I believe that the power of the throne should be brought into parity with the House of Commons. This would allow the throne to take the essential lead in government policy, while unanimous vote by the Commons could veto the actions of the Crown deemed inappropriate for the nation.

I'm also fairly supportive of Lord Sanne's suggestions. Few people know it now, but most kings of the Celtic or Saxon period were elected by vote of the barons and noblemen. Of course, this was when Barons, Knights and the aristocracy had to be badass soldiers, alongside the sons of the royal family... another bit of tradition that should be reinstated.

I am a completely loyal British subject. Indeed, I believe that the power of the throne should be brought into parity with the House of Commons. This would allow the throne to take the essential lead in government policy, while unanimous vote by the Commons could veto the actions of the Crown deemed inappropriate for the nation.

I'm also fairly supportive of Lord Sanne's suggestions. Few people know it now, but most kings of the Celtic or Saxon period were elected by vote of the barons and noblemen. Of course, this was when Barons, Knights and the aristocracy had to be badass soldiers, alongside the sons of the royal family... another bit of tradition that should be reinstated.
why?

why?

Well, its a mixture of things.

Part of it, I will confess, is a rabid fanatical loyalty to a romanticised past, when little concepts such as honour, duty and courage recieved more than the modern short shrift. And there were dragons, giants, damsels in distress, fey sorceresses and great big fights with men on horses giving amazing speeches and being gracious and regal all over the place. :p

However, the majority is simple political logistics. It costs money to support a politician. Tax from just one royal estate has surpassed the amount the British people spend. So the monarchy is self funding.

The next is corruption. A king or queen cannot be bribed, because they have a crapload of money already. The President of the US recieves "campaign contributions" from thousands of little interests. For heavens sake, do you really want a system of lobbyists where every little moronic interest pays money to thwart the needs of society and turn it towards fulfilling their own narrow goals? No.

The next is something I call incentive. What is it Tony Blair loses if he's voted out? Well, his job as a barrister paid more than the government ever has, he'll have a sizeable (understatement) pension, nice house, accolades - the lot. Clinton has done rather well for himself since leaving office and I'm sure Bush has a sizeable nest egg as well.

For a monarch, a real one, failure is somewhat more significant. Ask Charles the First. Ask James the Second. As John Stuart Mill said, (and I'll confess to paraphrasing) any government rules by the consent of the populace. The stakes for the King are rather higher than they are for a mere elected politician. So who has the higher incentive to be successful?

And five years . Why that? Why four, indeed? Who really believes that you can achieve a lasting impact in that time? Lets face it, the vast majority of actions taken in that term will be purely to win votes at the next election. So these policies will be short term, designed to please the voter in the short term. And, ye gods, we can't do anything to piss off the masses.

Lets imagine a scenario where the earth is nearing dangerously rapid ecological shifts (difficult to imagine, hmm? :p ). Lets imagine that certain political actions would slow the shifts down and make the transition much more survivable. Who is going to be better able to perform these actions? An elected politician, taking money from the oil lobby, desperately wanting to avoid alienating any voters with a car? Or a King, a leader, who steps forwards and says "for the good of the nation, we need green fuel" (much more eloquently of course). He requires seven years of unchanged policy and can ignore the "approval" of the selfish SUV-owning individualists.

Of course, in my ideal state, if the elected Commons unanimously decides that this is not beneficial for the state, then they will block his act. And what I want to ask you is, who loses?

I am part English and clearly we should keep the monarchy but stop this silly family line which causes them to be ineffective. We should resort back to the time when the Wittan choose then next king or queen due to their ability to rule well. Thus a group of people seperate from the government and with the British interest in heart should choose dunno all the details but that would be cool. Also Knights of the realm should be seen to protect the monarchy and continually serve their country doing more than just specilising in their fields. :sniper:

::shrug:: You could always merge the positions of Monarch and Prime Minister. Of course, if elections can only be from members of the royal family... that might be worse than our U.S. two-party system.

Did I say 'might'?

I have no particular regard for the monarch and family, I don'y know them, so I don't know what they're like. I guess they're a bunch of inbred foxhunting hoorays but as I said, I never met them so I don't know.

I have no particular regard for history or tradition, and I'm culturally Catholic and personally atheist so I don't have a religious connection to the monarchy.

But I say keep them. An apolitical head of state is a great thing. The head of state does what parliament tells her to do. A president would want to do her own thing. And who would we get to do it? Some monkey no doubt.

The next is corruption. A king or queen cannot be bribed, because they have a crapload of money already. The President of the US recieves "campaign contributions" from thousands of little interests. For heavens sake, do you really want a system of lobbyists where every little moronic interest pays money to thwart the needs of society and turn it towards fulfilling their own narrow goals? No.
And if the monarch was a real head of state, and Exxon offered her $Xbn for a bribe, she'd be too well bred to take it? Are you dreaming?

For a monarch, a real one, failure is somewhat more significant. Ask Charles the First. Ask James the Second. As John Stuart Mill said, (and I'll confess to paraphrasing) any government rules by the consent of the populace. The stakes for the King are rather higher than they are for a mere elected politician. So who has the higher incentive to be successful? Compare the number of Kings that have suffered a rebellion to the number of prime ministers that have been voted out of office. You might find a large disparity. It is very easy to get rid of a pm. I for one would have to be pushed very very hard to join in a blood rebellion, whereas I actively enjoy voting. Consent is a choice between alternatives. Liz I and Henry VIII stayed in power even though they had to crush all sorts of people to do it. Had there been a vote rather than a police state, they might not have carried on ruling.


Lets imagine a scenario where the earth is nearing dangerously rapid ecological shifts (difficult to imagine, hmm? :p ). Lets imagine that certain political actions would slow the shifts down and make the transition much more survivable. Who is going to be better able to perform these actions? An elected politician, taking money from the oil lobby, desperately wanting to avoid alienating any voters with a car? Or a King, a leader, who steps forwards and says "for the good of the nation, we need green fuel" (much more eloquently of course). He requires seven years of unchanged policy and can ignore the "approval" of the selfish SUV-owning individualists. Your belief that there's no such thing as a corrupt king is very odd. What do you know about Saudi Arabia? How many Range Rovers does it take to move a prince? The last time one of the minors (andrew or edward, i forget which) visited my area, there were 4.

Liz I and Henry VIII stayed in power even though they had to crush all sorts of people to do it. Had there been a vote rather than a police state, they might not have carried on ruling.


Perhaps I've missed the point, but those appear to have been chosen quite strangely. Elizabeth I was generally considered to have been one of the greatest monarchs of all time. Her staying in power was a very good thing.

And Henry VIII wasn't that bad, either. Big, fat man with a beard - perfect king material.

For my part, as an Englishman, I stand behind the monarchy totally. They might not be perfect -and I probably wouldn't invite any of them to a Christmas dinner- but they ARE the royals, so I shall support them.

pfft get rid of the leeches, they have no power and they're taking up waaaaaaaay too much valuble tax money.

From Holland, but it still sucks. So "HELL NO!"

Keep them: if it 'aint broke, don't fix it.

But one thing we could do, get the friggin queen of my five buck note. All the other people who have their faces on our money have actually done something for Australia.

Right, Queen Elizabeth II is officially Canada's head of state, isn't she?
When this is over, I'm curious to see the ratio of U.K. to the ratio of Commonwealth who are for/against the monarchy.

Actually Elizabeth of Braunschweig (anglicised to "Windsor") is NOT Elizabeth II of Canada, even though she styles herself thus.

Namely there has NEVER been an Elizabeth I of Canada, as in the time of Elizabeth I of England, Canada was a French fur trade colony.

Therefore the current queen of England, Elizabeth of Braunschweig, cannot be E II R, as she wrongly signs on Canadian money, stamps etc.

I'm British and i say keep them! They do no harm...they provide great scandal in the news, are a fab tourist attraction....and gives the UK a reason to hold big over the top parties and celebrations! It costs us, the UK taxpayer 61p per year for the Queen....I for one think thats fantastic value for money!

I'm English and I say keep the monarchy. There are arguments either way for whether they generate income for the country or drain it, but they certainly add something to the international image of the United Kingdom.

Which makes me think - if we got rid of them, we'd have to change the name of the country.

Personally, I'm just a romantic and I take pride in the history of our nation. I think losing the monarchy would remove one of the things which most defines us on the world stage. There is a continuity in history in this country which is absent from most other countries in the world.

I'm British and i say keep them! They do no harm...they provide great scandal in the news, are a fab tourist attraction....and gives the UK a reason to hold big over the top parties and celebrations! It costs us, the UK taxpayer 61p per year for the Queen....I for one think thats fantastic value for money!

And even better for the rest of the world that dont pay a cent for the entertainment!

Which makes me think - if we got rid of them, we'd have to change the name of the country.


As a matter of point, shouldn't we be The United Queendom, anyway?

Not sure about Queendom. Has there ever actually been a country with such a title, or is it just a modern PC rendering of kingdom so as not to offend feminists?

Anyway, interesting to see how much the vote has swung in favour of keeping the monarchy now the UK is awake and in some cases active.

I object to being someone's subject, not a citizen. I object that a group of poorley educated, in bred snobs have their income protected by the state and use it to ponse around most days instead of getting proper jobs. I object that the Queen is the largest land owner in Scotland and the price of property in Edinburgh is so outragious that i'll never be able to afford my own place at this rate - yet it is a small town in all honesty. I object that our council tax is so exorbant because we have to pay for their security when they visit and maintain their homes, which are our property (the states) but most of the year are out of bounds.

I disagreed with Cromwell's puritanical faith, but the man had the right idea, cut off their heads and be done with it. Anyway, look at France and America, the two other old democracies, their citizens feel part of their contries in a way that British nationals don't, and they are ultimately abitors of their own fate and there worst leaders (Nixon forced to resign, Bush snr and Carter not re-elected, countless French Ministers and prime-ministers forced to hand in their resignations) but we will ultimately have Charlie boy and the isn't a thing man or woman can do about it.

Not sure about Queendom. Has there ever actually been a country with such a title, or is it just a modern PC rendering of kingdom so as not to offend feminists?

I doubt it, apart from my country. But then, that's run by a man, so the problem comes full-circle.

I think it should change, though, when we get a Queen. An angry feminist is a dangerous thing. I certainly wouldn't stick around if I saw Germaine Greer with a gun.

I am Welsh and abhor the idea of being the subject of a German family, just because...
How outdated is the idea that someone who has come from inbred stock should be considered better than me becuase they just happened to be in the right ball bag.
Pathetic!! Get rid of the lot of them. The cheeky buggers are the richest people in Britain and still take money from the taxes of the poorest!!

Not sure about Queendom. Has there ever actually been a country with such a title, or is it just a modern PC rendering of kingdom so as not to offend feminists?

Anyway, interesting to see how much the vote has swung in favour of keeping the monarchy now the UK is awake and in some cases active.

Queendom is a perfectly viable term and implies a heireditary female line, such as the rain queen of South Africa, but Britain is really a Kingdom dispite that fact that the thrown no longer can only pass down the male line.

Cards on table: UK resident in favour of the continuation of the monarchy.

Why?

If it aint broke, don't fix it. I see no 'solution' that wouldn't cause problems.

For the same reason, while I would not cry over some of the hereditary peers (the ones who juxst 'turn up', or don't even do that, most of the time) losing their oposition in the House Of Lords, you need provably interested constants in the system, to oppose the 'burn brightly, burn short' careers of the superstar politicians in the HoC who chase, chase, chase public support, at the expense of long-term stability.

While I don't entirely equate the Royal Family to being a political force (more meta-political one, together with being a key focal point of British identity) you don't (or didn't, until Diana (lovely-looking girl, sad she died, think she was the worst thing that happened to the Royal Family of today probably since Wallace Simpson, and maybe even Cromwell)) get true members of the Windsors striving for power, but instead are born and brought up knowing that they have a part to play and reponsibilities and duty as well as privalidge.

Sometimes the balance shifts, but the situation is historically proven to correct. Excluding the full changes of Royal Houses (usually combative affairs, which could never happen in today's world without total and unpredictable changes that would mean all bets are off), examples are:
Nobles (themselves hardly serfs) forced the Magna Carta on King John, allegedly annoying the population (although actually it was the Nobles themselves that were upset, but that was before anyone else could count) with several issues (the supposed method of his ascent by imprisoning/killing his nephew, failing to gain territory, issues with the Church of the day ).
Charles I overdid the "Deiu et mon Droit" thing and was reduced in height for his pains, but the republican alternative did not work (though cannot dismiss the possibility that it was just not "its time had not come", that I leave to those who support the idea) and a more cautious (though admitedly still playboy) Charles II was brought back.
The personal interests of Edward VIII meant that he abdicated, but the Royals recovered, and we arguably had a better monarch in George VI... c.f. how many alternate history accounts of WW2 start with monarchical sympathies being towards Hitler (though don't forget that despite Kaiser Wilhelm II's relationship with our monarch of the day, this did not prevent politics starting the war, and maybe you anti-royalists consider this a failing).
How the current situation supports the "it adapts, adopts, survives" situation I wouldn't dare to say, in pure support of the way things worked, because the episode isn't over, but I have positive opinions of how they [I]may turn out.

There are counter-arguments, but in today's day and age there is no obvious reason to depose the monarchy and turn republican that would not cause problems.

Queendom is a perfectly viable term and implies a heireditary female line, such as the rain queen of South Africa, but Britain is really a Kingdom dispite that fact that the thrown no longer can only pass down the male line.

That makes sense - basically, if the line of the throne passed from mother to daughter rather than father to son, then we'd be a queendom.

It's funny the amount of people complaining that the queen is of German descent. At various times England has been ruled by Dutchmen (William III), Scots (James II), Frenchmen (William the Conqueror for want of a more obvious example, but I'm sure there are others), Danes (Yay Cnut!), and occasionally Englishmen and women too. But the bloodlines of all the major royal houses of Europe have become so mixed, there's really no way of distinguishing the nationality of the monarchy.

I am Welsh and abhor the idea of being the subject of a German family, just because...You're just angry at Edward I... ;)

(Not a nice guy, for those looking for counter-examples to the "How monarchy helps" opinion, he even predated several 'answers' to the "Jewish Question" of 1930s/40s Germany, including closing down their businesses, enforcing the compulsory wearing of the Star of David and further (though well short of Holocaust-level) persecution...)

Compare the number of Kings that have suffered a rebellion to the number of prime ministers that have been voted out of office. You might find a large disparity.

Precisely! Obviously Kings are a much more popular form of ruler!
I know, I'm being facetious. :D But it is an interesting point. We've diluted the concept of leadership to the point where it is largely meaningless. If you're going to have anarchy, have anarchy. If you're going to choose a leader, choose one who is good enough to keep around forever.

Consent is a choice between alternatives.

Indeed. And since by your own confession you won't choose the alternative of bloody rebellion, you select the choice of de facto loyalty to the Crown.

On the corruption elements - what the hell is the point of a monarch being corrupt? The Queen is the state and the state is the Queen. If she impoverishes the people, she impoverishes herself - her power derives from the people, their loyalty, respect and ultimately their taxes. Yes, yes, before you say it, I know - the current "royals", The Monarchs-As-Puppets, have immense personal fortunes that they use for, well, mostly themselves. But if they ruled the country, their wealth would be that of the nation and vice versa. Therefore, taking an $ X billion dollar bribe would, if they believed it necessary, serve to enrich the nation. I would argue that up until the Georgian period, when the disparity between the throne and Parliament really swung in the wrong direction, even the most lavishly decadent monarchs served their country remarkably well.

Of course, there are such things as corrupt kings, I cannot dispute that. And oppressive ones. But you get the same thing with El Presidentes, Mugabes, Hitlers, Mussolinis... and so long as the Commons exists as an equal, balancing (rather than dominant) force, the chances of such a thing are remarkably low. This is why constitutional monarchies are fairly successful. We've just swung way too far in the wrong direction.

?


Are "commonwealth" countries about,
I mean, do they share the wealth of the crown,

or does that mean that they have to share their wealth
with the crown,
you know, referring to imperialism (which there is absolutely
no honor whatsoever in any way shape or form, no matter what
the self-justification might be) (i'm speaking of all countries
not those that went through an 'official' decolonization process)

God Save the Queen

The British monarchy actually contributes a net 'profit' to the British taxpayer, unlike a President, and the Monarch provides an important role as an impartial head of state with much experience, who doesn't have to do stuff with one eye on re-election. So there's not electioneering from the monarch. The political role of the monarch is very, very important, as long as it's kept in reserve (as it is now.) If a monarch started trying to weild too much power then get rid of them and get a new one.

I like the idea of the monarch, but I don't care much for the rest of the family, they should fully support themselves. (aside from the next in line, which, unfortunately, is Charles :rolleyes: )

Actually Elizabeth of Braunschweig (anglicised to "Windsor") is NOT Elizabeth II of Canada, even though she styles herself thus.

Namely there has NEVER been an Elizabeth I of Canada, as in the time of Elizabeth I of England, Canada was a French fur trade colony.

Therefore the current queen of England, Elizabeth of Braunschweig, cannot be E II R, as she wrongly signs on Canadian money, stamps etc.

Ah, I like that! Very true.

I think this is one of those "belly buttons" of Canada's independence though; she's really Canada's head of state in the sense that Canada is connected to the U.K., so it would still be Elizabeth II.

Keep the main family, but not all the hangers-on on the civil list. :rolleyes:

?


Are "commonwealth" countries about,
I mean, do they share the wealth of the crown,

or does that mean that they have to share their wealth
with the crown,
you know, referring to imperialism (which there is absolutely
no honor whatsoever in any way shape or form, no matter what
the self-justification might be) (i'm speaking of all countries
not those that went through an 'official' decolonization process)
The commonwealth is an informal grouping of countries in the former British Empire. Membership is entirely voluntary. It doesn't entail much. They don't even have to recognise the Queen as head of state. They pretty much just get to compete in the Commonwealth Games.

Germany can have them back if you ask me.

It's usually southern English that like them anyway.... and that's because they are all stuck up ponces that like to think they are practically royalty, or cockneys (or cockney wannabes) that have through tradition been taught their place as the mere subjects for the monarchy and don't question that hierarchy.

I hate royalty and think it's a rather pointless idea, myself.

I hate royalty and think it's a rather pointless idea, myself.


Unless they actually rule over us, through one way or another - it is quite literally pointless.
Anyone who uses the Royals as a benchmark for living (as is suggested we lowly subjects do) has missed the point to life really.

God Save the Queen.

The Monarchy is just something nice to have around - very traditious (yes I made that up) and they make money through tourism. They're also something different that we can be proud of, even if the next generation of Royals isnt really looking good... Really, the media should just stop hounding them. The Monarch would never have put up with this "investigative journalism" crap in the 19th century, or even pre-1950s. If you follow someone around for their entire life then of course you're going to find something bad that they probably wouldnt want published, but I dont see how publishing it actually matters to anyone or affects anything except to make someone else feel miserable and make the Monarchy look feeble, even though actually they're just being shown up as the normal human beings that they are.s

Pathetic!! Get rid of the lot of them. The cheeky buggers are the richest people in Britain and still take money from the taxes of the poorest!!

actually JK rowling is now richer than the queen, but at least she earned it :D

I really don't care, but maybe you should get rid of it considering how the children act.

actually JK rowling is now richer than the queen, but at least she earned it :D

Personally, I don't think she did (Rowling) but that's my opinion and in no way authoritative in the realm of literature...

(For the sake of the Anarchy And Herblore coment, I'm a northerner and... whilst not a Royalist, am an anti-'Anti-Royalist'. And what's wrong with her children, Sel Appa? Charles's error was listening to popularist advisers with Diana and her other offspring suffered a combination of the same mistake and hitting constitutional brick-walls in attempting to follow their hearts... Again, from a by-standing viewpoint...)