NationStates Jolt Archive

Just wondering, who here is a mega/slight/anti/total anti royalist?

Just wondering, who here is a mega/slight/anti/total anti royalist?

Yeah, i'm one of those.

Yeah, i'm one of those.
meep.

I'm still trying to figure out why there's a royalty in the UK.

I mean, if it's just to provide for a tourist attraction, the money could be better spent on something more fun.

I don’t like the idea of royalty for a variety of reason, but I’m neither British nor a citizen of one of the commonwealth nations, so fuck my opinion.

meep.
meep?

Given that royalty/ nobility is based on either the idea of some people being better than others by birth, or the idea that some supernatural being grants rule to those worthy, I cannot support it.
Or, in short: La noblesse à la latèrne.

meep?
me too.... i guess. i dunno *shrugs*

me too.... i guess. i dunno *shrugs*

yay. :p

In an ideal country there should be no royalty. For now I couldnt care less.

Yeah, i'm one of those.
Bloody Australians. As long as she officially rules us, you have to be stuck with the state-sponsored lounger too. QUIT YOUR WHINING.

¬_¬

i used to be a total anti royalist. now i think that all but one of their residences (including buckingham palace) should be reclaimed and used as tourist attractions and/or housing and all public money that is spent on them should be withdrawn. they should make their own money and pay their taxes. for the moment the world still seems interested in gawking at them and so this should be taken advantage of but i don't reckon they'll last much longer after big ears takes the throne.

I don't reckon they'll last much longer after big ears takes the throne.
Oh please, think of the possible tabloid headlines - if we ever get a Yes Man as a PM, they could be captioned as Noddy and Big Ears!

THE SUN WILL HAVE A FIELD DAY!

Staunch Republican here.

Oh please, think of the possible tabloid headlines - if we ever get a Yes Man as a PM, they could be captioned as Noddy and Big Ears!

THE SUN WILL HAVE A FIELD DAY!
haha!1! awesome! well he won't coincide with blair probably but with the 'special relaitionship' shite any prime minister we're gunna have will be a yes man.

Hang them of shoot them?

I'm still quite in favour of the plan that Equus put forward on here a few years back: we make a horse our monarch. It should be a sufficiently agreeable compromise between the two side of the debate to keep everybody happy.

Bloody Australians. As long as she officially rules us, you have to be stuck with the state-sponsored lounger too. QUIT YOUR WHINING.

¬_¬

I won't, but I can share your pain.

If there were a Top Trumps pack of Head's of State I think HMQ would win hands down.

Hang them of shoot them?

I'm still quite in favour of the plan that Equus put forward on here a few years back: we make a horse our monarch. It should be a sufficiently agreeable compromise between the two side of the debate to keep everybody happy.
strip them of their assets and let them fend for themselves like the rest of us (start em off in a nice council house and show them first hand what a great job Thatcher did of destroying socioeconomic mobility in this country)

why? The Queen doesn't vote and was not responsible for the democratic election of Mrs T.

Why do we continue to fund her and the entire royal family? They owns tons of thier private property, there just isn't the need.

why? The Queen doesn't vote and was not responsible for the democratic election of Mrs T.
it was a side-comment

Hang them of shoot them?

I'm still quite in favour of the plan that Equus put forward on here a few years back: we make a horse our monarch. It should be a sufficiently agreeable compromise between the two side of the debate to keep everybody happy.


But Camilla isn't allowed to be Queen:p

it was a side-comment
Who's that crazy cat who votes like a leftie and hates like a rightie?

PM! You're daaaamn right.

A bunch of inbreds who I'm expected to consider my betters? I guess I'd be anti. It's not like they do anything cool.

You need to make more money off the royals.

First, take away their holdings - money and all - and put them on a regular salary like every other government bureaucrat - nothing fancy.

Then, pick some better looking royals. I mean, think Paris Hilton. Sure, she's stupid, but she's hot looking.

Next, put cameras everywhere they live, and get the producers of Big Brother to film and televise their antics.

After that, take most of the other castles (you won't be using them), and get Alton Towers to put amusements and rides in them.

Above all, make money.

A bunch of inbreds who I'm expected to consider my betters? I guess I'd be anti. It's not like they do anything cool.
Oh I don't know, that it's a knockout thing they did back in the 80s was pretty fucking funny.

Although they don't deserve royalty for it.

¬_¬

Why do we continue to fund her and the entire royal family? They owns tons of thier private property, there just isn't the need.

we don't - that's a complete misconception

we don't - that's a complete misconception
67 pence per subject per year, pal.

when they're sitting on hundereds of thousands of acres of land, and a personal art collection worth an estimated 20 billion quid... hmm.... i'd rather have my 67p mars bar thanks :p

Can't buy anything for 67p, at least not in London.

Some of us are lucky enough not live in London

Yea, but only fools live in London.

If the monarchy was abolished, would you replace the Queen with an elected president and leave the UKs political system untouched? Would it still be called the UK?

I'd say I'm a supporter of the monarchy its neat how we have someone who can sort parliament out anytime they see fit yet should they ever use there powers unjustly they will lose them like a bad superhero plus they provide a profit which is always good.

never mind they fact that the Queen provides a rally point for the British and too many other peoples to mention and apparently has some very good tea:D

If the monarchy was abolished, would you replace the Queen with an elected president and leave the UKs political system untouched? Would it still be called the UK?
that's what i would do. an elected president may not cost much less than the queen, but would at least be elected and have a specific job to do. on the non-political side of things the land and wealth of the crown could be put to much better public use by the government, or sold off to ease the housing price problem.

No royal family here. It would be kind of stupid to get one now.

never mind they fact that the Queen provides a rally point for the British and too many other peoples to mention and apparently has some very good tea:D
not if you are a republican :p


interesting nobody's mentioned tourism yet.

The royal family are supposed to symbolize the country, to be a sort of continous line which ties the nation of today together with the nation of yonder.

Which makes me wonder why, when we elected to reestablish royalty in 1905, chose a Danish prince and an English princess, both of a German house, as our king and queen...

It's okay now, though. They've been marrying locals for the last two generations, now.

I'm more or less neutral in this debate, but do the anti-monarchists recognize the royalty as important to British unity and patriotism. I guess it could be argued that the Queen drives a wedge between England and the other home nations...

The royal family are supposed to symbolize the country, to be a sort of continous line which ties the nation of today together with the nation of yonder.

Which makes me wonder why, when we elected to reestablish royalty in 1905, chose a Danish prince and an English princess, both of a German house, as our king and queen...

It's okay now, though. They've been marrying locals for the last two generations, now.

We re-established royalty?

We re-established royalty?

You're not the only country with royalty.

interesting nobody's mentioned tourism yet.

I doubt us having a monarchy is more attractive to tourists than us opening all the royal residences to them.

Well, I like the idea of royalty. But the implementation in general could be better..
It's just never like in stories..

However as heads of state go, I still prefer royalty. It's not like they have any actual power here anyway.

I'm more or less neutral in this debate, but do the anti-monarchists recognize the royalty as important to British unity and patriotism.


sadly, yes.
but whether patriotism is necessarily a good thing or not is another matter

I guess it could be argued that the Queen drives a wedge between England and the other home nations...
and it could be argued that blind patriotism drives a wedge between this country and others generally (i'm hinting at closer integration within the EU)

You're not the only country with royalty.

oops, sorry. Where are you from?

I doubt us having a monarchy is more attractive to tourists than us opening all the royal residences to them.
exactly my point (or it would have been had anyone brought it up :p)

that big art collection could give some extra spice to the national gallery, too... and that's just for starters. tens of thousands of dutchy or crown land could also make beautiful national parks...

oops, sorry. Where are you from?

That nation which would call any other European nation "the south".

exactly my point (or it would have been had anyone brought it up :p)

that big art collection could give some extra spice to the national gallery, too... and that's just for starters. tens of thousands of dutchy or crown land could also make beautiful national parks...

Isn't the world's largest stamp collection also owned personally by the queen?

Isn't the world's largest stamp collection also owned personally by the queen?
she just likes collecting pictures of herself ;)

I love my mother, my father, and the Queen.

*blows self up*

I have to admit, I do support royalty.
For example, they may hahve become it my birth or marriage, and not popular vote, but look at the sense of responsabi,ity MOST of them have - and they can have no personal private life in Europe.
Someone mentioned Camilla. She's actually a good example, as she started off hated by the public - lots still hate her - and yet she has a workload that is one of the biggest out of most royals, which she carries on with despute the death of her father. Apparently 'The Firm' worry the most about her workload - so they don't just sit around.
And the Queen obviously does something - look at the celebaratnios for her birthday - or HSH Princess Grace of Monaco. Look at the outpouring of national greif at her death.
Also, royalty just fascinates some, as well.

the royal family shoud go.not because they are expensive,theyre pritty cheap when it comes down to it!The main reason I oppose them is because they have done nothing(except be born)to deserve the privilages they have, they have no democratic mandate,it is a sexist institution(men get the throne first)and in a country that is trying to throw off the idea of an elite class and aristocracy,and trying to promote a meritocracy,the idea of a royal family is archaic and hypocritical.

Not me. I don't listen to heavy metal ;)

Just wondering, who here is a mega/slight/anti/total anti royalist?


I wouldn't like a monarchy in my country but beside that I'm not really bothered!

I'd sooner get rid of all our elected representitives than the Royal Family.

The only downside to Queenie and Co. is they don't kick the government into shape, as they should...

Militant Royalist. Come the next Civil War, we're gonna teach those Roundhead scum what little words like "respect", "honour" and "duty" mean.

I'll aim for "glory" as well, but thats just me.

i used to be a total anti royalist. now i think that all but one of their residences (including buckingham palace) should be reclaimed and used as tourist attractions and/or housing and all public money that is spent on them should be withdrawn. they should make their own money and pay their taxes. for the moment the world still seems interested in gawking at them and so this should be taken advantage of but i don't reckon they'll last much longer after big ears takes the throne.
Given that the monarchy doesn't cost you any money i shouldn't worry about spending the money elsewhere. Privvy purse was given in exchange for the profits of crown owned lands which now make considerably more than the privvy purse pays. Every time you see a newspaper headline saying how the royal family costs us 60p each scoff and throw it away, its just the governmen trying to pretend the massive holes in its finance arnt due to imcopetence.

You really think that they could seperate crown and state ? the legal battle would costs billions and then the actual seperation would cost further billions. then things would be bungled mismanaged and closed. We're far better of leaving things like the Duchys in the hands of the people running them now, they can at least do it, and do it without hiring in 40 consultants at 9'000 pounds a day before granting the contract to a firm theyll lateer retire to.

Whilst i admit that the royal family stretches a little further than it should, there's no reason for money to be going to distant relatives, for the most part these people arn't the idle rich, these arnt politicians who can expect to retire to some company theyve been slipping backhanders for 40 years, these people will die in their jobs and so tend to perform it with some dexterity.

notable exceptions apply.

67 pence per subject per year, pal.

when they're sitting on hundereds of thousands of acres of land, and a personal art collection worth an estimated 20 billion quid... hmm.... i'd rather have my 67p mars bar thanks :p
Am I the only one who finds it interesting/stupid/several other adjectives that you have to pay someone to "rule" you? Even when their leadership is just a figurehead seat?

Am I the only one who finds it interesting/stupid/several other adjectives that you have to pay someone to "rule" you? Even when their leadership is just a figurehead seat?

All the money their (sizable) estates make is donated directly to the government, who they draw a salary from after that.

They give in more money than they take out.

Bloody Australians. As long as she officially rules us, you have to be stuck with the state-sponsored lounger too. QUIT YOUR WHINING.

¬_¬

I don't like this rule at all. It's time to make our own laws! ;)

I'm a very strong republican.

Staunch monarchist here. Long live New Zealand’s Head of State, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of New Zealand.

meep.
eh?

I though most of her works of arts and properties where held in trust by Her Majesty for the Naton not sure about the Duchy of Lancaster though . if we found somebody as able as Cromwell after he died and not given it to son then maybe we would be still a republic and be the Commonwealth but we couldnt and invited Charlie to take e the throne and ther was much parties and celebrations and church fetes

I am a Royalist!

Long live her Britanic Majesty.

And may all those who oppose her Rule be the victim of excruciatingly agonising traffic-accidents + unexpicable delays in the arrivals of ambulances.

Long live her Britanic Majesty.

And may all those who oppose her Rule be the victim of excruciatingly agonising traffic-accidents + unexpicable delays in the arrivals of ambulances.
Don't forget the substandard Medical care.;)

Don't forget the substandard Medical care.;)


I felt that exquisite care would be better - provided there is delay in receiving it.
We don't want them to die BEFORE the limb has to come off.

I felt that exquisite care would be better - provided there is delay in receiving it.
We don't want them to die BEFORE the limb has to come off.
Ah true, and then they have the good fortune of having a nice rest up in the Tower, before they get to 'hang around' the Bridge.
Remind others.;)

Monarchy is simply stupid. We need to bring back the guillotine, figuratively speaking.

Monarchy is simply stupid. We need to bring back the guillotine, figuratively speaking.

And kill off all those horrible breeders?

*nominates Hillary for US-president*

A Nation with Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarines commanded by a President with PMS, isn't scared, but scarey.

And kill off all those horrible breeders?

Actually, royalty tends to be surprisingly gay.

Actually, royalty tends to be surprisingly gay.


And?

It be far from me to claim all gays are tossers.

Take that nice chap Richard.
I'd rather have him as a housemate than Tourette-Pete.

And?

"horrible breeders" - they are horrible, but calling them breeders is just slander.

It be far from me to claim all gays are tossers.

But, hopefully, all gays will toss you off. You just need to up your game.

As long as there is a parliament to keep them in check and cover up when their being dicks (like wearing swastika armbands) they cant do that much harm, they have all the money they need and no incentive towards corruption, they cant be kicked out of office so they can say what they actually believe in, unlike democratically elected politicians who sell out to corporations to fund their election campaigns so they can get a higher paying job.

And don't forget that they are (or should be) being raised from birth to be an effective ruler.

One more thing, they provide an excellent source for personality cults to inspire the masses and remind them that they are nothing special (unlike egalitarian govornments which turn people into self-absorbed emotionals/hysterionics(spelling) eho believe television is a human right (there are TVs in the UK prisons!))

Moral of the story: get off your ass and issue order 66 your majesty before i have to start a totalitarian movement!!:headbang: :sniper:

"horrible breeders" - they are horrible, but calling them breeders is just slander.



But, hopefully, all gays will toss you off. You just need to up your game.


I believe you've used the term 'breeder' on several occasions?
Makes you guilty of insulting language, doesn't it?
Quite apart from insubordination.

Nej tak. I prefer the female of the species.

As long as there is a parliament to keep them in check and cover up when their being dicks (like wearing swastika armbands) they cant do that much harm, they have all the money they need and no incentive towards corruption, they cant be kicked out of office so they can say what they actually believe in, unlike democratically elected politicians who sell out to corporations to fund their election campaigns so they can get a higher paying job.

Which is why we all hate politicians. However, any replacement would be a figurehead and not a politician.

And don't forget that they are (or should be) being raised from birth to be an effective ruler.

Doesn't gurantee an effective ruler. George III, anybody? At least an elected head of state would have to be effective enough to win an election.

One more thing, they provide an excellent source for personality cults to inspire the masses and remind them that they are nothing special (unlike egalitarian govornments which turn people into self-absorbed emotionals/hysterionics(spelling) eho believe television is a human right (there are TVs in the UK prisons!))

Which is why I wouldn't abolish the monarchy entirely. Let them keep their silly titles, but remove them from the State and (uncodified) constitution. That way, we can put them on TV 24/7 as a replacement for Big Brother.

Moral of the story: get off your ass and issue order 66 your majesty before i have to start a totalitarian movement!!:headbang: :sniper:

I'll start a totalitarian movement with you, if you like. It's either that or Biology coursework for me.

I believe you've used the term 'breeder' on several occasions?
Makes you guilty of insulting language, doesn't it?

What else is new?

Nej tak. I prefer the female of the species.

It's spelt "tack," and your preference is your loss.

What else is new?



It's spelt "tack," and your preference is your loss.

In other words, you plead guilty to insubordination.
Therefore, your execution by guillotine can be carried out immediately.

i fear that my totalitarianism would never catch on, too many bad experiences in recent centuries (Nazis, Soviets), and i openly use the term national-socialist for it. Im not a nazi (nor am i a fucking mexican, im a crossbreed and i like nachos), by national socialist i literrally mean the state and the people. I don't believe it would be possible either without some new technology and massive social, economic and violent upheavel. If your really lucky i will illuminate you all some day.

In other words, you plead guilty to insubordination.

You need not plead anything to incoherence.

Therefore, your execution by guillotine can be carried out immediately.

"There shall be no capital punishment." (http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_PageExtended____6319.aspx)

Monarchy -

Pros:
Apolitical representative of the state.
Time to develop relationships with other nations.
Cheap (Compared to other heads of state)
Trained from birth for the job
Generate tourism
Insurance against abuse of power by politicians
Good newspaper copy on quiet days

Cons:
Not elected


On balance I think that I am strongly pro royalty. It is definately preferable to having your nation represented in diplomatic, trade and cultural missions by Dubya.

I serve my Monarch well, for a price occasionally.

the royal family shoud go.not because they are expensive,theyre pritty cheap when it comes down to it!The main reason I oppose them is because they have done nothing(except be born)to deserve the privilages they have, they have no democratic mandate,it is a sexist institution(men get the throne first)and in a country that is trying to throw off the idea of an elite class and aristocracy,and trying to promote a meritocracy,the idea of a royal family is archaic and hypocritical.

Britain isn't the only country with royalty - and you notice that some royals actually do do something for the coutnry - Prince Albert of Monaco, womanizing aside, actually helps in the day-to-day business of running Monaco, and Prince Hans Adam actually had mroe powers voted to him - so, republicans, imagine a nation who would vote to have royalty. In Denmark it is said that if Queen Margrethe wasn't Queen, she'd be elected PM. In Jordan, the beautiful queen Rania has:
Helped women become more equal in the East,
Through her efforts, the nation has joined the WHO,
Set up (not just become patorn, but set and actively involved in) several charities, such as ChildrenTalk, JordanDiscover (see her website at www.queenrania.jo)
Encouraged women to choose whether or not to wear the headscarf,
Has participated or organised:
The development of income-generating projects
Encouraging the advancement of best practices in the field of microfinance
The protection of children from violence
The promotion of Early Childhood Development
The incorporation of Information Technology into schools
Some of the organizations with which the Queen is involved with are:

Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation
Jordan River Foundation
Arab Women's Summit
Arab Academy for Banking and Financial Sciences (AABFS) - a pioneering institute in the ME region offering technical and academic training in banking and financial services
Jordan Cancer Society
National Team for Family Safety
National Team for Early Development
Child Safety Program and Dar Al-Amman (center for abused and neglected children, the first of its kind in the Middle East)

She is also Palestinian - imagine giving up your country to rule another, that you've never even been to before.

I'd sooner get rid of all our elected representitives than the Royal Family.

The only downside to Queenie and Co. is they don't kick the government into shape, as they should...

Well done, that NSer!:)

Militant Royalist. Come the next Civil War, we're gonna teach those Roundhead scum what little words like "respect", "honour" and "duty" mean.

I'll aim for "glory" as well, but thats just me.


You'll find me, ready and waiting, General The Abomination (perhaps you should change your name:) )

I really don't see the point of the Monarchy.

They have no real powers, if they tried to dismiss Parliament or fire the Prime Minister, there would be outrage over them ignoring Democracy. They have their power because they were born into it, which means that they are born our betters rather than our equals, which is odd, because I've always been taught all Humans are equal. Each member of the Commonwealth may only pay 67p for them, but that is more than many Families live on for a week.

That said, Queen Elizabeth has served her country well. She should not be dethroned. But, once she is gone, we should seriously consider removing the Monarchy from their cushy, unearned and unelected Mansions.

And to the Tourist Argument? Explain how the White House and Versaille are kept afloat.

If a nation has to resort to selling plates with their Head of State's head on them, their Culture must be severely lacking...

If a nation has to resort to selling plates with their Head of State's head on them, their Culture must be severely lacking...

That's what the British do. And its not a measure of culture - its a souvenir - like, for example, when I visited my sister in Monaco, I got a mug with the Monegasque flag on it, and a Monaco fridgemagnet. What's wrong with that?
And here in Luxembourg, when HRH Princce Louis marries in September, we'll probably buy mugs as momentos.

The thing is that the monarchy, and specially Elizabeth II, are the symbols of the UK. Whenever I think in the UK, I think in The Queen.
Another important point to take in mind is the following. In Britain, social climbers tend to imitate the nobility, and the nobility mingles around the Court, which mingles around the royal family, so the whole social system is based in the monarchy. I think that the British royal family does a great work, they help many many people each year and they are also a BIG source of income for tourism, that sole point is a powerful reason to keep them. Prince Charles may not be a saint, but if we look at him only by his work, he has done a great job. Now, of course people would not like to fund Princess Margaret or Prince Harry's hedonist lifestyles, but not because of them the rest of royals should pay. And let's not forget that British taxpayers only pay The Queen and Prince Philip. The rest of royals that receive money from the Civil List do not use those money for themselves, but to pay the expenses of their official duties, this means travelling to the place, paying their staff, transportation, etc. The one who really pays them for their job is The Queen from her personal budget. The monarchy is not so expensive, and the incomes its give are by far bigger.

And yes, Louis of Luxembourg is marrying this girl Tessy Antony, have you heard any rumours there in Luxembourg?

I'm a slight royalist.

I advocate a theocracy. *Puts on bullet-proof vest and flame retardant clothing*

It would be basically presbyterian (a Christian republic, not a Christian democracy) in the legislative and judicial branches, but it would be a monarchy in the executive branch. The monarch and his/her family would provide continuity while the judicial and legislative branches continue to go through terms of serving. Because today's monarch would be rearing tomorrow's monarch, it would provide stability in policy and morality.

Of course, there would have to be provision in the constitution for the removal of the monarch and possibly his/her family also.

So, I'm a slight monarchist (royalist), in that the emphasis should be on the theocratic republic and the monarch aspect should be limited by a constitution.