Monarchy

[Harry Smith]

Are you in favour of countries like Britain or Canada keeping the Queen as our Head of State?

We always hear the west banging on about freedom and democracy yet we can't even vote for the person who holds the most power in the our government.

[sqishy]

I say no, but I am not fully one way or the other. Just closer to no.

[Morg]

Britain has been a constitutional monarchy for 100s of years why change a government system that works?

[Southside]

I always thought it was kind of cheesy to have a monarch in a well developed, modern country like the UK.

Though I've been told many times that the royal family provide a lot of tourist dollars so that's really the only benefit I see.

[Zenos]

hey if it's not broke don't fix it!

[Tarannosaurus]

Doesn't the queen earn £56 million a year? That's the part I'd disagree with, earning millions each year for being born into the right family.

[TheBigUnit]

nah keep them

[Cygnus]

Doesn't the queen earn £56 million a year? That's the part I'd disagree with, earning millions each year for being born into the right family.

Then you are disagreeing with me and my family.

Anyways, they don't seem to be much of a problem or iron-fisted rulers, if rulers at all, they are more of figures, so they could still be there.

[Amazerful]

It doesn't bother

[Korashk]

I'm pretty sure the Queen of England doesn't have the most power in the UK government.

Even if she technically does have powers, those powers are basically never used. Everybody (I thought) knows that the Queen is a political figurehead and virtually nothing else officially.

[Kameraden]

Without the Queen, there will be nothing binding the states of Northern Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales: her House unified (or maintained) them, and as such, she represents that unity.

[Abyssal Echo]

The royals have been there for hundreds of years. I say if it ain't broke don't fix it

[ksdnfkfr]

I thought Queen Elizabeth was just a celebrity figurehead, with ceremonial duties rather than any actual political power. And doesn't all that traditional royal ceremonial stuff bring in tons of tourist money? I figured that's the only reason why it still exists, keeping a time honored tradition and putting on a spectacle show for tourism.

[Lovelife090994]

Monarchies are among the oldest forms of government and can be quite amazing when you think of the idea of a royal family, however they are not for every country. But, I'd like the UK to stay just that, a United Kingdom.
I am in America but I say, Let them have royals, let there be monarchy if it be by will of the people and history!

Hmm... I should write that down! lol

Then you are disagreeing with me and my family.

Anyways, they don't seem to be much of a problem or iron-fisted rulers, if rulers at all, they are more of figures, so they could still be there.

Don't tell me you're rich or related to a Royal House somewhere? And, I think royals too should be paid, as long as corruption is not an issue.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[tovaris]

Monarchs have no place in the modern wold.
Countries like UK, Canada, Gibraltar... Should in my opinion take example in us, who have democratecly got rid of our monarch on conpletly free referendum and baned the basterd out!

Without the Queen, there will be nothing binding the states of Northern Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales: her House unified (or maintained) them, and as such, she represents that unity.

Every nation should be able to have their own country only joining unions at free willl.

The royals have been there for hundreds of years. I say if it ain't broke don't fix it

People have also run around dressed in animal hives and strav, yet they dont any more forthey have found a better solution clothes, the same way is with foms of goverment one day monarchs were a practical thing now we know better.

I always thought it was kind of cheesy to have a monarch in a well developed, modern country like the UK.

Though I've been told many times that the royal family provide a lot of tourist dollars so that's really the only benefit I see.

£ isnt the same as $
And turists dont pay to see the queen they pay to see a building that can stand even without her help.

[ArcticEagle]

Considering I'm a Monarchist, I choose No.
The Monarchy in Britain and its commonwealth is working quite well.
Heres a recent example:
Say the British Government shut down because the british parliament couldn't agree, The Queen reserves the right to dissolve Parliament but in the United States, The president does not have that power to dissolve congress and have a Re-Election right away and because of that especially if election day is months, years away which means the government is in a massive deadlock and cannot be changed without force of the people and this day in age, its nearly impossible unless it outrages nearly everyone or the U.S. Military somehow Coup d'état and storms congress. The Power was used in Australia before by the Governor General (Queen's representatives) because Australia had a government shut down in...1975 I think. The governer general can dissolve parliament or refuse too but the Queen can interfere.
She still has some power, but not much but enough to keep its government working.

[NeuroTiger]

I thought Queen Elizabeth was just a celebrity figurehead, with ceremonial duties rather than any actual political power. And doesn't all that traditional royal ceremonial stuff bring in tons of tourist money? I figured that's the only reason why it still exists, keeping a time honored tradition and putting on a spectacle show for tourism.

I share the same opinion.

[Harry Smith]

I thought Queen Elizabeth was just a celebrity figurehead, with ceremonial duties rather than any actual political power. And doesn't all that traditional royal ceremonial stuff bring in tons of tourist money? I figured that's the only reason why it still exists, keeping a time honored tradition and putting on a spectacle show for tourism.

She has a very large amount of power. The royal family actually brings in a very low amount of money- out of the Britain 20 top tourist attractions only 1 of these belongs to the royal family.

The royal family brings in less than 1% of the overall tourism revenue for Britain. So it's not actually as great as it seems. I also recall the death camps in Poland getting visited by tourists- does that make them good?

I don't understand how anyone can be in favour of the queen- we always talk about living in a society where everyone can do well and be part of the democratic process. Yet I cant vote for the head of state- the only qualification the queen has is that her father did the job. That's not fair in a democratic society

[Stronk Serb]

The royal family is not British. They should not be paid for out of taxes nor have political power. They can have a ceremonial role, but not a political one.

[ksdnfkfr]

She has a very large amount of power. The royal family actually brings in a very low amount of money- out of the Britain 20 top tourist attractions only 1 of these belongs to the royal family.

The royal family brings in less than 1% of the overall tourism revenue for Britain. So it's not actually as great as it seems. I also recall the death camps in Poland getting visited by tourists- does that make them good?

I don't understand how anyone can be in favour of the queen- we always talk about living in a society where everyone can do well and be part of the democratic process. Yet I cant vote for the head of state- the only qualification the queen has is that her father did the job. That's not fair in a democratic society

As an American I really don't know anything about it. Here it just seems like the royals are celebrities. They're in celebrity tabloids and talked about like the Kardashians or whoever, rather than political figures. The way it seems presented here is that the Prime Minister is the equivalent of our President and the person who's actually in charge.

[Harry Smith]

As an American I really don't know anything about it. Here it just seems like the royals are celebrities. They're in celebrity tabloids and talked about like the Kardashians or whoever, rather than political figures. The way it seems presented here is that the Prime Minister is the equivalent of our President and the person who's actually in charge.

Yeah they're treated as celebrities because they don't have anything to do, they just go around spending tax payers money and shaking hands. Our armed forces swear allegiance to the Queen and she has the power to dismiss the parliament and the prime minister.

[britishboy]

bhyYgnhhKFw&hl=en-GB&client=mv-google&gl=GB&guid=

that sums it all really

[ksdnfkfr]

Yeah they're treated as celebrities because they don't have anything to do, they just go around spending tax payers money and shaking hands. Our armed forces swear allegiance to the Queen and she has the power to dismiss the parliament and the prime minister.

I had no idea. That is a scary notion. What if she goes all Emperor Palpatine?

video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bhyYgnhhKFw) that sums it all really

Now that is exactly what I thought was going on and the only power QEII had was in real estate.

[Cygnus]

Don't tell me you're rich or related to a Royal House somewhere? And, I think royals too should be paid, as long as corruption is not an issue.[/COLOR]

I'm rich, not royal, but I am saying that because I apparently was born into the right situation and apparently people are against that.

[britishboy]

I'm rich, not royal, but I am saying that because I apparently was born into the right situation and apparently people are against that.

welcome to the club my friend:P

[Lovelife090994]

I'm rich, not royal, but I am saying that because I apparently was born into the right situation and apparently people are against that.

Oh wow, never did I think someone rich would be on a a sight like this... Well, I think it's the greedy and evil rich over the years that gave all the wealthy a bad name.

[britishboy]

Oh wow, never did I think someone rich would be on a a sight like this... Well, I think it's the greedy and evil rich over the years that gave all the wealthy a bad name.

stereotypes! not all upper class are right wing or heartless, many are great supporters of left wing parties, also the .com billionaires are super rich but you wouldn't know that, they use the same sites as the lower classes use

[Emerald Dream]

Let's please keep on-topic.

[britishboy]

ok back on topic
bhyYgnhhKFw&hl=en-GB&client=mv-google&gl=GB&guid=

that pretty much dismisses all the republic arguments but does lack the main pros

[Jess]

There is really no need to remove the monarchy. I agree with the notion of "if it's ain't broke don't fix it". It's working well, why remove it?

[Harry Smith]

bhyYgnhhKFw&hl=en-GB&client=mv-google&gl=GB&guid=

that sums it all really

Yet you voted to remove it in the survey?


I had no idea. That is a scary notion. What if she goes all Emperor Palpatine?



Now that is exactly what I thought was going on and the only power QEII had was in real estate.

No, she has the power to dismiss parliament and the prime minister and she's only there because her dad was their

ok back on topic
bhyYgnhhKFw&hl=en-GB&client=mv-google&gl=GB&guid=

that pretty much dismisses all the republic arguments but does lack the main pros

Once again you voted to remove it in the poll!

It doesn't dismiss it at all, as I mentioned the tourism argument is not only a straw-man but it's exaggerated. Only 1/20 of the UK's top attractions belong to the royals. The math it that video is completely flawed- 62 million is our population not are tax paying population.

It also doesn't really matter if she brings in money- the death camps in Germany bring in millions does that justify the holocaust jack? Tourism doesn't equal democracy. In a republic Buckingham palace would be open 365 days a year and with full access for the general public allowing for if anything an increase in tourist revenue

I want to vote for my head of state- it's ironic that you bang on about democracy yet you're happy to live under an out of date system which allows one family to rule the entire country- that's not democracy is it!

[britishboy]

Once again you voted to remove it in the poll!

It doesn't dismiss it at all, as I mentioned the tourism argument is not only a straw-man but it's exaggerated. Only 1/20 of the UK's top attractions belong to the royals. The math it that video is completely flawed- 62 million is our population not are tax paying population.

It also doesn't really matter if she brings in money- the death camps in Germany bring in millions does that justify the holocaust jack? Tourism doesn't equal democracy.

I want to vote for my head of state- it's ironic that you bang on about democracy yet you're happy to live under an out of date system which allows one family to rule the entire country- that's not democracy is it!

lol I thought it was should we have/keep:P

so your problem isn't the cost? the mention at the end sums it up, shes a symbol for us harry, we worship her in the anthem, in every government office, but in reality, she is just a symbol, she works extremely hard so I have no problem her having the money, and she is a symbol for us.

who actually leads our country? it's David Cameron, he was the one who was making decisions on Syria, he is the one passing laws.

listen to our anthem
tN9EC3Gy6Nk&guid=&hl=en-GB&gl=GB&client=mv-google

[Harry Smith]

lol I thought it was should we have/keep:P

so your problem isn't the cost? the mention at the end sums it up, shes a symbol for us harry, we worship her in the anthem, in every government office, but in reality, she is just a symbol, she works extremely hard so I have no problem her having the money, and she is a symbol for us.

who actually leads our country? it's David Cameron, he was the one who was making decisions on Syria, he is the one passing laws.

listen to our anthem
tN9EC3Gy6Nk&guid=&hl=en-GB&gl=GB&client=mv-google

Bin men work very hard, my dad works very hard, as does my mum. The majority of Britain work hard- that doesn't quality them to hold such high levels of power.

Syria would of needed the armed forces- guess who the order would have to come from- the head of state, Guess who has the power to dismiss dave cameron- the head of state. Who makes the laws actualy laws from the commons- the head of state. I want to vote for the person with that much power.

We live in an undemocratic country- your a hypocrite in believing in such a phony democracy. I believe that everyone in this country should be born equal- the queen was born above us and I'm not stupid enough to be brainwashed by a song. The word worship scares me as well- she's not a god. Her dad had the job- that's her only qualification. Who voted for our head of state?

[britishboy]

Bin men work very hard, my dad works very hard, as does my mum. The majority of Britain work hard- that doesn't quality them to hold such high levels of power.

Syria would of needed the armed forces- guess who the order would have to come from- the head of state, Guess who has the power to dismiss dave cameron- the head of state. Who makes the laws actualy laws from the commons- the head of state. I want to vote for the person with that much power.

We live in an undemocratic country- your a hypocrite in believing in such a phony democracy. I believe that everyone in this country should be born equal- the queen was born above us and I'm not stupid enough to be brainwashed by a song. The word worship scares me as well- she's not a god. Her dad had the job- that's her only qualification. Who voted for our head of state?

bin men work hard???????? if they worked hard they wouldnt be bin men

as much as this hurts me to say.... no one will listen to the queen, in the same way the yanks don't listen to the constitution

how do you not get exited by royal stuff? dosent it make you proud?

[Harry Smith]

bin men work hard???????? if they worked hard they wouldnt be bin men

as much as this hurts me to say.... no one will listen to the queen, in the same way the yanks don't listen to the constitution

how do you not get exited by royal stuff? dosent it make you proud?

I'm have a feeling somewhere there is a gay guy or gay rights issue wrapped up in this?

Yes they do work hard- it may be a menial job but they still put a good amout of work. A bin men found my Gran after she had a fall and dropped her off at hospital, they also help her around the house with jobs since she's rather elderly. So yeah they do work hard.

You quite clearly don't understand the supreme court then in America, the civil rights movement pretty much relied on the constitution. Yeah an unelected monarch makes me feel nice and proud. We all love a German family that's ruled for the last 200 years without a single vote. You've lost the argument about government so you fall back to mindless songs and rhetoric- nice job Mr Goebbels The armed forces follow the queen not the commons- they swear allegiance to her not the cabinet.

-edited. -Emerald Dream

[britishboy]

Yes they do work hard- it may be a menial job but they still put a good amout of work. A bin men found my Gran after she had a fall and dropped her off at hospital, they also help her around the house with jobs since she's rather elderly. So yeah they do work hard.

You quite clearly don't understand the supreme court then in America, the civil rights movement pretty much relied on the constitution. Yeah an unelected monarch makes me feel nice and proud. We all love a German family that's ruled for the last 200 years without a single vote. The armed forces follow the queen not the commons- they swear allegiance to her not the cabinet.



ok your nan has a nice bin man, thats like a cleaner no actually it is worse than a cleaner

they're British, thats old blood and irrelevant really, she leads over 50 nations, she's going to be foreign automatically to most

being proud of the queen is like being proud of a flag a symbol

[saea97]

Why is it in particular that republicanism is a better choice? And why is democracy such a feel-good buzzword? An election is not a panacea and "the public" are not necessarily a qualified arbiter. "The public" are the people who elected Hitler, Mugabe and Suharto, and who supported Bolshevism against the tsar. Why should they necessarily be trusted to elect leaders of the free world? Let's not forget, too: America (that pillar of democracy) is currently in the throes of being absolutely ripped apart by bitter fighting between the two parties. "A house divided against itself cannot stand" as Abraham Lincoln somewhat ironically pointed out. 47% of Americans opposed Obama in 2012 and continue to vehemently oppose every move he makes now (to the point of shutting down the government and bringing the USA hours from defaulting on $16tn of debt). How is that conducive to effective government?

For a similar reason, the sovereign's veto doesn't necessarily have to be construed as a bad thing, either. Aside from the fact that it's virtually never used, the threat of its existence stops parliament from getting out of control or doing stupid stuff like the Senate and the House are doing in the USA right now. Someone pointed out earlier that the Australian government deadlocked and shut down in the 70s, and the Queen dismissed the entire parliament. It solved the problem, and it sent a message.

Additionally, I don't understand how the arbitrary birth of a monarch can arouse ire, any more than the arbitrary birth of someone into a family of above-average wealth or the fact that I arbitrarily happen to live in a 1st world country and not Sudan, etc. It's not their fault. Future monarchs (like the new George, for example) will spend all their lives being trained to take up the role of monarch. They'll end up very capable, and I'd rather that someone from this privileged position be my monarch by default than trust a far less capable mass of voters to decide.

Note: I'm certainly not advocating absolute monarchy or autocracy, and I cannot guarantee that a hereditary monarch will be a saviour of a nation, but it would be hard to get any worse than the situation in many of the world's flagging republics. Constitutional monarchies demonstrably work - countries like Lichtenstein, Scandinavia, the Benelux - and yes, the UK - are all ticking along a lot better than the likes of Ireland, Greece, the US - or indeed those other republics who are governed by tyranny, backward, corrupt and poverty-ridden after the overthrow of their monarchies (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Rwanda, Libya). Look up the list of constitutional monarchies and find me some that are as destitute as Rwanda, Afghanistan and Iraq.

So yeah, the Queen is harmless but useful, and a symbol of national identity above the divisiveness of petty politics.

[Emerald Dream]

Please stop with the personal insults and dragging things into a debate which have no relation to the debate. Let's please keep on topic.

[Harry Smith]

Why is it in particular that republicanism is a better choice? And why is democracy such a feel-good buzzword? An election is not a panacea and "the public" are not necessarily a qualified arbiter. "The public" are the people who elected Hitler, Mugabe and Suharto, and who supported Bolshevism against the tsar. Why should they necessarily be trusted to elect leaders of the free world? Let's not forget, too: America (that pillar of democracy) is currently in the throes of being absolutely ripped apart by bitter fighting between the two parties. "A house divided against itself cannot stand" as Abraham Lincoln somewhat ironically pointed out. 47% of Americans opposed Obama in 2012 and continue to vehemently oppose every move he makes now (to the point of shutting down the government and bringing the USA hours from defaulting on $16tn of debt). How is that conducive to effective government?

For a similar reason, the sovereign's veto doesn't necessarily have to be construed as a bad thing, either. Aside from the fact that it's virtually never used, the threat of its existence stops parliament from getting out of control or doing stupid stuff like the Senate and the House are doing in the USA right now. Someone pointed out earlier that the Australian government deadlocked and shut down in the 70s, and the Queen dismissed the entire parliament. It solved the problem, and it sent a message.

Additionally, I don't understand how the arbitrary birth of a monarch can arouse ire, any more than the arbitrary birth of someone into a family of above-average wealth or the fact that I arbitrarily happen to live in a 1st world country and not Sudan, etc. It's not their fault. Future monarchs (like the new George, for example) will spend all their lives being trained to take up the role of monarch. They'll end up very capable, and I'd rather that someone from this privileged position be my monarch by default than trust a far less capable mass of voters to decide.

Note: I'm certainly not advocating absolute monarchy or autocracy, and I cannot guarantee that a hereditary monarch will be a saviour of a nation, but it would be hard to get any worse than the situation in many of the world's flagging republics. Constitutional monarchies demonstrably work - countries like Lichtenstein, Scandinavia, the Benelux - and yes, the UK - are all ticking along a lot better than the likes of Ireland, Greece, the US - or indeed those other republics who are governed by tyranny, backward, corrupt and poverty-ridden after the overthrow of their monarchies (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Rwanda, Libya). Look up the list of constitutional monarchies and find me some that are as destitute as Rwanda, Afghanistan and Iraq.

So yeah, the Queen is harmless but useful, and a symbol of national identity above the divisiveness of petty politics.

My issue isn't about having a head of state with the power to overrule parliament- I agree that the US model shows that they have their own issues with their system. However I'm opposed to the very fact that the Queen is in power because her dad was in power- no-body voted her. She holds such large amounts of power yet we can't even vote for her. A president would allow us to someone who is not only elected but also accountable. We always talk about the great western freedom yet we have a system where the royals are above us- I believe that everyone should be born on equal footing with an equal chance to succeed.

The 5 examples you gave all had largely autocratic monarchs who turned the country on a downwards spiral , along with two countries that the UK has invaded so it's kinda our fault they're fucked

ok your nan has a nice bin man, thats like a cleaner no actually it is worse than a cleaner

they're British, thats old blood and irrelevant really, she leads over 50 nations, she's going to be foreign automatically to most

being proud of the queen is like being proud of a flag a symbol

It may be worse than a cleaner- they still work hard for the 8 hours that they work The argument that because of the queen works hard we should have her is completely wrong- millions of people work hard in Britain that doesn't justify making them the head of state.

It shows the whole irony of the system- who voted for a german family to come over here in the 1700's and rule our country? Who voted for that?

Ok I'm sure many Nazis we're proud of swastika that doesn't add anything to the argument does it?

[Mastretta]

The monarchy have no say I think so no keep it.

[britishboy]

lol we make more money off her than she takes... go on harry challenge me on it;)

[Harry Smith]

lol we make more money off her than she takes... go on harry challenge me on it;)

Tourism wise no- if we didn't have a queen we could open up the palaces fully like other countries and have them available all year round.

The royal palaces only have one place in the top 20 tourist attractions- legoland is more popular.

The royal family accounts for less than 1% of the overall tourism industry revenue, that's a fact. The British monarchy is 112 times as expensive as the Irish president and more than twice as expensive as the French semi-presidential system.


I've got the numbers and I guess you've got the rhetoric as usual, please look at these numbers because we don't actually benefit money wise, and finical policies shouldn't make any supreme. A 100% tax rate would generate a lot of money for a country but it wouldn't work would it?

[britishboy]

Tourism wise no- if we didn't have a queen we could open up the palaces fully like other countries and have them available all year round.

The royal palaces only have one place in the top 20 tourist attractions- legoland is more popular.

The royal family accounts for less than 1% of the overall tourism industry revenue, that's a fact. The British monarchy is 112 times as expensive as the Irish president and more than twice as expensive as the French semi-presidential system.


I've got the numbers and I guess you've got the rhetoric as usual, please look at these numbers because we don't actually benefit money wise, and finical policies shouldn't make any supreme. A 100% tax rate would generate a lot of money for a country but it wouldn't work would it?

oh harry I do love you;) www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbhyYgnhhKFw

[The Trendy Wolf]

I always thought it was kind of cheesy to have a monarch in a well developed, modern country like the UK.

Though I've been told many times that the royal family provide a lot of tourist dollars so that's really the only benefit I see.

The thing is that they have no true power. They don't make the majority of the country's decisions.

[Harry Smith]

oh harry I do love you;) www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbhyYgnhhKFw

I'm going to watch a 3 minute video because you can't actually debate the numbers I provided, Youtube video's are about as reliable as well nothing. Actually debate for once

[britishboy]

I'm going to watch a 3 minute video because you can't actually debate the numbers I provided, Youtube video's are about as reliable as well nothing. Actually debate for once

awww poor harry;) nothing said was false was it? nope:D long live our queen:D

[Harry Smith]

awww poor harry;) nothing said was false was it? nope:D long live our queen:D

It used the rather poor idea that all 66 million of the people pay tax which simply isn't true meaning that the economic policy shouldn't be done per person.

Heil Hitler, no difference. Blind obedience to a phrase leads to blind obedience to oppression

[britishboy]

It used the rather poor idea that all 66 million of the people pay tax which simply isn't true meaning that the economic policy shouldn't be done per person.

Heil Hitler, no difference. Blind obedience to a phrase leads to blind obedience to oppression

true!!!!! omg! even more per person haha:D

you know what? im buying you a Hitler t shirt;) anything out there you can link to Hitler;) and do you feel oppressed? cos I feel freeeee:D I'm a little hyper...

[Harry Smith]

true!!!!! omg! even more per person haha:D

you know what? im buying you a Hitler t shirt;) anything out there you can link to Hitler;) and do you feel oppressed? cos I feel freeeee:D I'm a little hyper...

I'm oppressed in the fact that I can't vote for my head of state where as someone in Iraq can...

I use the Hitler examples to dumb down the argument for you, because you can be a bit slow to get the idea without a general analogy

[britishboy]

I'm oppressed in the fact that I can't vote for my head of state where as someone in Iraq can...

I use the Hitler examples to dumb down the argument for you, because you can be a bit slow to get the idea without a general analogy

yeah you have a crush on Hitler;) you cant vote for the flag either, its just part of the country, like her majesty anyway your going back on the ignore list

[Emerald Dream]

No points are being made here other than to make snide comments at each other. This thread has gone nowhere long enough. Once again (and again, and again)....if you have a personal problem, take it to PM. Leave it off the boards, please. :locked: