NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think? Should monarchy be abolished?

Personally I want to keep the monarchy. I just love the old traditions.

European Monarchies: No

African/Middle Eastern Monarchies: Yes

Well.... you probably don't want my opinion. I'd get modded like hell. Plus, its not my country anyways.

But I can't say I'd give you any pro's on the concept.

Read Heinleins Double Star. Or, examine the workings of the Star Kingdom of Manticore in David Weber's Honor Harrington books.

I've always thought a fully functional constitutional monarchy with some kind of power of democratic replacement (change one monarch or monarchal regeim for another, if need be) was the way to go... But recent elections in the US has me a bit frightened of it now... If voters can't be bothered to think, learn, and vote with knowledge, it could get very messy. Still... If the details could be worked out...

I very much like the capability of a monarch to get things done, but I also fully understand the concept that a long and arduous process prevents mistakes from being made easily (in concept, at least).

So, while it may be at lest to a large degree an emotional choice in my case, if it were somehow up to me to formulate a government, I think there would be layers of feudal nobility culminating in a very functional monarchy, moderated by an elected body.

In a real world example, I almost cried when Great Britian effectively disolved the House of Lords... I felt, if anything, the noble structure should have been strengthened.

All monarchies should be abolished - they belong to the past.

I'm speaking from a British perspective here; I agree that our monarchy is part of our history but that's where it should stay. Why should great names such as Henry V, Richard III or Elisabeth I be tainted by association with idiots like the present Prince of Wales.

Yes, absolute monarchies like in Saudi are even more damaging than the constitutional type but all monarchies still exert an malign influence. They undermine the concepts of equality and meritocracy at a most fundamental level.

Would you really rather be a subject than a citizen? I personally find it demeaning.

I completely disagree.

Governments should be abolished and the Prince of Wales should become the next King and governour of the UK.

Charles has more idea of how the country should be run than Blair or Howard. Now if Kennedy had a chance of getting in I'd think differently.

The Uk should be a republic, period.


They're German anyway.
They cost huge sums of money for simply sitting there being given more money.
They represent an english-centric and aristocratic society where wealth, not merit, determines social status.
THey do have political power. Only "tradition" prevents them from using it.
They get immediate places at the best universities and academies with no regards to intelligence or even effort. Hint:Harry.
They are the head of state, but reflect nothing of the metropolitan and cosmopolitan siciety that is the UK.
They're damn unpopular - around 30% want a republic now, and 45-50% of 16-24 year olds want one. (Can't remember source - sorry guys!)


We've had great Kings and Queens - but that's no reason to keep the one's that we've got now. Nowdays, even a great king/queen would have little invluence without suddenly circumventing democracy and making themselves very unpopular.

And as for the house of lords, that is the most ineffectual chamber of any Bicameral parliament. Merely a rubberstamp for the Bliar administration.

Well.... you probably don't want my opinion. I'd get modded like hell. Plus, its not my country anyways.

But I can't say I'd give you any pro's on the concept.

i metaphorically and irocially bow to you sir ;)

I completely disagree.

Governments should be abolished and the Prince of Wales should become the next King and governour of the UK.

Charles has more idea of how the country should be run than Blair or Howard. Now if Kennedy had a chance of getting in I'd think differently.


I'm assuming this is meant to be joke. I'm not sure exactly what Charles' talents are but I doubt whether they would hold much relevance for the stewardship of a diverse, complex, post-industrial society and economy

I don't think there is much call for more human tampons in modern government.

Well it was meant as a bit of a joke, but not entirely. I am completely behind Prince Charles with his support for the youth, his organic stance on agriculture and his appreciation of traditional architecture.

I do not believe the monarchy costs anything at all, I look at them as caretakers for our national treasures. All the palaces, grounds etc. need looking after and it is these that cost money. I wouldn't want to see them as non-profitable museums.
As the Queen showed this week with her Good Morning America appearance, royalty creates a lot of tourism which brings in big money.

I think whinging about how rich they are is just plain jealousy, well, I wouldn't want to live their lives (can't get rat-arsed and trap off with a minger down a night club if you're royal).

Also New Burmesia , if you think we should run the country on what 16-24 year olds want you are insane. Most people do not know what is good for them, it takes people like Charles, Jamie Oliver et. al to tell them!

I have more sympathy for our Belgian King than for 'elected' chiefs of state of some other countries.

Mister President, vive le roi!!

Well it was meant as a bit of a joke, but not entirely. I am completely behind Prince Charles with his support for the youth, his organic stance on agriculture and his appreciation of traditional architecture.

I do not believe the monarchy costs anything at all, I look at them as caretakers for our national treasures. All the palaces, grounds etc. need looking after and it is these that cost money. I wouldn't want to see them as non-profitable museums.
As the Queen showed this week with her Good Morning America appearance, royalty creates a lot of tourism which brings in big money.

I think whinging about how rich they are is just plain jealousy, well, I wouldn't want to live their lives (can't get rat-arsed and trap off with a minger down a night club if you're royal).

Also New Burmesia , if you think we should run the country on what 16-24 year olds want you are insane. Most people do not know what is good for them, it takes people like Charles, Jamie Oliver et. al to tell them!
i live on an estate where I'd get mugged for twenty pence.. of course I'm fucking jealous!

The Uk should be a republic, period.


They're German anyway.
And any fifth generation Indian (for example) immigrants are still Indian?

They cost huge sums of money for simply sitting there being given more money.
Also not true, the tax payer only funds the Queen and Prince Philip, and even then mainly for security and the upkeep of the buildings. The Queen actually makes a net contribution of over 100 million pounds to the treasury through the Crown Estate, which is her personal land.
THey do have political power. Only "tradition" prevents them from using it.
They have theoretical political power. Convention, the fact that Parliament controls the Treasury and therefore all the Monarchs money, and the fact that Parliament actually grants the Monarch the role of chief of the armed forces (under the 1701 Act of Settlement the Monarch has no automatic right to control a standing army, Parliament grants the Monarch this right every year), means that the Monarch cannot exercise their power unilaterally.

They're damn unpopular - around 30% want a republic now, and 45-50% of 16-24 year olds want one. (Can't remember source - sorry guys!)
A maximum of 30% (at a stretch) of the population does not mean "damn unpopular".

I have more sympathy for our Belgian King than for 'elected' chiefs of state of some other countries.

Mister President, vive le roi!!

Personally I have more respect for the guy who shouted "vive la republique" at the coronation of Baudoin, though I'd have shouted "vive le peuple"

A maximum of 30% (at a stretch) of the population does not mean "damn unpopular".
well that depends on what percentage of brits give a flying fuck about the royal family..

The Uk should be a republic, period.


They're German anyway.
They cost huge sums of money for simply sitting there being given more money.
They represent an english-centric and aristocratic society where wealth, not merit, determines social status.
THey do have political power. Only "tradition" prevents them from using it.
They get immediate places at the best universities and academies with no regards to intelligence or even effort. Hint:Harry.
They are the head of state, but reflect nothing of the metropolitan and cosmopolitan siciety that is the UK.
They're damn unpopular - around 30% want a republic now, and 45-50% of 16-24 year olds want one. (Can't remember source - sorry guys!)


We've had great Kings and Queens - but that's no reason to keep the one's that we've got now.
DAMN straight. plus you missed out an important one (as far as i'm concerned)


Inheriting their position and wealth gives them no claim to be heads of state in my eyes. They did nothing to earn their place - unlike, say, even the most dishonest politician: at least he has to get elected.
They represent and are the last useless vestiges of a wholly undemocratic system
Its not just about the money they take in, its about their ridiculous wealth. a BBC programme recently (well it was probably a couple of years ago now) estimated the Royal wealth at somewhere in the region of 44 billion pounds. what have they done to deserve this? this is money that could much better go to use funding further improvements in public services, or go back into the pockets of every british citizen. the royal family themselves have a fair bit of wealth, but that i would say they are allowed to keep because often they have earned it (although usually simply through rent).
Along similar lines they own tens of thousands of acres of land throughout the UK, which could be put to better use as national trust national parks for all to enjoy (although many already are), or as much-needed land for housing development - especially in the face of the south east's current housing and population problem. They also own a vast gallery of art, hoarded away in their own private galleries: again this could much better serve the people in national, free entry art museums.
The tourist trade is important to Britain, but to imply that it is solely based on a few decrepid old royal fools is an insult to the country and said industry, and also suggests that the tourists come to see the royals themselves. does this happen? no. they come to immerse themselves in our grand and rich history, to see the castles and all that jazz. if the royals were no more, i would say the tourist trade would not suffer - indeed, with the royal castles (balmoral (sp?), windsor, sandringham, etc) and buckingham house opened up to the public, i would argue that the industry may well improve.

but my main point is the one of heredity, for which reason alone, dispite any other practial reasons against this particular monarchy, i cannot support the existance of any monarchy.

I've never lived under one, so I don't have first hand experience. Some are oppressive but so are some governments. If the ppl are genuinely happy about having a monarchy then why not?

Oh dear

Oh dear
:confused: