Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

in light of the jubilee and all... should we abolish the monarchy?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
I just don't think it matters that much.

Odd, perhaps, to start a topic if you aren't bothered about it... but in this case I htink it's a valid point becaus eit's one of those issues that gets blown out of proportion. I mean, I wouldn't invent them, but now that they're there... who really cares?

*cowers with hands covering head in expectation of barrage from people who do*

Does anyone definitively KNOW of we make or lose money from'em? I guess the tourist benefits are unquantifiable... how much is the civil list?

one thing I do know: the queen mum, nice as she was, emphatically wasn't the woman of the 20th century. Nor was di, for that matter. It amazes me that people could feel so much grief for a woman they never knew... it sort of cheapens the genuine emotion when it's swamped (sorry mr blunkett) by all the false stuff.

I thnk, like foxhunting, this issue is just a diversion from the things that really matter. But that's worth discussing in itself.
«134

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not a big fan of the Royal Family but I wouldn't vote for abolishment.

    If we take them away we'd still have to pay for the upkeep of their estates as they'd be listed buildings I imagine.

    And in losing the queen, wouldn't we just have to fork out for a president anyway?

    Besides, if they go, who would the tabloids rip the piss out of? <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Royal family make us a net profit..See here for details on royal finances.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Without a monarchy, large proportions of currently completely closed royal properties would be opened up to the public, generating far more profits from tourism than currently. Tourists don't come to see the royals - they come to see the buildings. People still pay to visit Napoleon's state rooms are the Louvre, despite France's lack of an unelected emperor.

    The royal estates would still be owned by the government and could continue to turn a profit. However, this would run contrary to over two decades of privatisation. Besides, the actual profit they generate is just a drop in the ocean of government income.

    One of the most important factors for me about abolition of the monarchy is not whether they are profitable or not, but the actual principle. I dislike the fact that my overall leader is an unelected monarch, hereditary, apparently appointed by God, whoever he may be. It has to be one of the most undemocratic principles in existence.

    Other nations, when abolishing monarchs, didn't sit down and calculate if their net economic gain would increase or deacrease. It's irrelevent, when considering how small the sums are in terms of national politics.

    I accept that they act as a figurehead, apparently behind which the nation can rally. However, they are becoming more and more out of touch with the nation itself, so this apparently positive attribute is fast fading.

    I also dislike the actual family itself, but that's another matter.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not just about money, although that is a major case for the Royal Family.

    The Royal Family is all about pomp and ceremony. These are things that we do very well in this country, and it is something that we should be proud of. It's part of our heritage, and draws in big crowds.

    I did find it hilarious when Charles was quoted on the radio talking about the need for a better society.
    I paraphrase...
    Prince Charles:
    It's about the Muslim girl mowing the lawn for the elderly Hindu lady down the road
    As if he's ever popped over the road to Buck House and offered to cut the grass <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
    It's moments like this that make them seem so out of touch.
    But I digress...

    Overall, the monarchy are good for the country, and so I'm a big supporter.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If the Queen actually had any power then id agree with you Vox...Fortunately, she has about as much political power as my left testicle. Shes nothing more than a puppet of the prime minister, she bows to his every whim. This current queen is a disgrace anyway but I wont get into that.

    The only reasons I have for supporting the monarchy are the fact that they make a net profit for the country and they have decades of experience in managing the royal estates. Second reason is that most people in this country still support them. While most people support them then I will be happy to keep them also.

    You say the profit they make is negligible, well so is the cost so wheres the harm?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
    <STRONG>I accept that they act as a figurehead, apparently behind which the nation can rally. However, they are becoming more and more out of touch with the nation itself, so this apparently positive attribute is fast fading.</STRONG>
    Ambassadors are unelected, yet they represent the country (and therefore the population) in foreign countries.

    The Queen is just a figurehead perhaps, but a good one who draws in tourists from all over the world. The buildings aren't the only attraction - the trooping of the colour, changing of the guard, Jubilee all bring the crowds in. They wouldn't exist without the Royal family.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The point I was making was that the cost/profit are irrelevent - it is the principle of the matter.

    She doesn't exercise power, but this is purely through convention and unwritten understanding. Constutionally, there is nothing that can stop her sacking the government, appointing her own set of ministers (who, incidentally, do not even have to be MPs or Lords) and ruling the country totally herself.

    I recognise that the monarch should not be abolished without a majority vote by the population supporting such abolition. This does not mean, however, that I am not going to adopt my personal view that they should be abolished.

    Britain had been a leader in democratic rights, way ahead of most countries. There are striking similarities between the American Constitution and the Magna Carta; the latter existed hundreds of years earlier and was a document way ahead of its time. In fact, to remind them of this, the Americans keep a copy of the Magna Carta alongside the Constitution. We were even the first country to throw off our monarchy in revolution and install something resembling democracy, although admittedly it was far from it. However, since reinstating that monarchy our pace towards democracy slowed considerably. I'd like to see completion of the transition.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kentish:
    <STRONG>
    Ambassadors are unelected, yet they represent the country (and therefore the population) in foreign countries.
    </STRONG>

    They're appointed by a democratically elected government; the monarch is not. In fact, to take your argument to its logical extreme, you would have to have a plebicite on every single appointment and law to render them representative. That would be impracticable, and is exactly the reason we have elected MPs.
    Originally posted by Kentish:
    <STRONG>
    The Queen is just a figurehead perhaps, but a good one who draws in tourists from all over the world. The buildings aren't the only attraction - the trooping of the colour, changing of the guard, Jubilee all bring the crowds in. They wouldn't exist without the Royal family.</STRONG>

    Why would we no longer be able to continue to troop the colour or have changing of the guard?

    The Jubilee wouldn't be missed, and besides, other countries celebrate their anniversaries of throwing off unelected government, such as Bastille Day in France. We could do the same.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
    <STRONG>Constutionally, there is nothing that can stop her sacking the government, appointing her own set of ministers (who, incidentally, do not even have to be MPs or Lords) and ruling the country totally herself.</STRONG>

    Yep and constitutionally there is nothing stopping parliament lopping off her head if she tries such a thing.

    If she tried anything like that then it wouldnt get any further than her gob. What powers she has in theory do not match up to what she has in practice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Vox Pops:
    <STRONG>They're appointed by a democratically elected government; the monarch is not. In fact, to take your argument to its logical extreme, you would have to have a plebicite on every single appointment and law to render them representative. That would be impracticable, and is exactly the reason we have elected MPs.
    </STRONG>
    Appointed is not the same as democratically elected.
    And I didn't suggest that we should vote for ambassadors, I was merely pointing out the similarity with the Royal family.
    Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
    <STRONG>Why would we no longer be able to continue to troop the colour or have changing of the guard?

    The Jubilee wouldn't be missed, and besides, other countries celebrate their anniversaries of throwing off unelected government, such as Bastille Day in France. We could do the same.</STRONG>
    Yeah true, but it's not the same if there's nothing to guard!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    <STRONG>

    Yep and constitutionally there is nothing stopping parliament lopping off her head if she tries such a thing.

    If she tried anything like that then it wouldnt get any further than her gob. What powers she has in theory do not match up to what she has in practice.</STRONG>

    Where is the point, then, in perpetuating the complete difference between theory and reality?
    Originally posted by Kentish:
    <STRONG>
    Appointed is not the same as democratically elected.
    And I didn't suggest that we should vote for ambassadors, I was merely pointing out the similarity with the Royal family.</STRONG>

    There is very little similarity between ambassadors and Royals. Ambassadors are appointed by an elective government, thus are likely to be in line with the people's views, as they elected that government. Ambassadors are not permanent, nor are they hereditary.

    The Monarch is appointed by God, with no say from the people. They are permanent for as long as they live or until they choose to abdicate, and they are hereditary.

    I still fail to see similarities.
    Originally posted by Kentish:
    <STRONG>
    Yeah true, but it's not the same if there's nothing to guard!
    </STRONG>

    Is the Queen even in Buckingham Palace for half the changes of the guard? I think not. Do they still do it? Yes. Do people still watch? Yes.

    Besides, parts of Buckingham Palace could be converted into a Presidential, or whatever system we replace the monarch with, residence. This would have many advantages over a few terraced houses in a London side street, notably extra space for the machinery of government and easier methods of security.

    It would also give the guards something to guard.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    <STRONG>

    Yep and constitutionally there is nothing stopping parliament lopping off her head if she tries such a thing.

    If she tried anything like that then it wouldnt get any further than her gob. What powers she has in theory do not match up to what she has in practice.</STRONG>


    She has the full sworn support of the armed forces and the police.
    Soldiers, police officers, firemen all swear allegiance to the monarch and not the government.
    Most of the people I know in these insitutions are monarchists.
    There is very little stopping her from sacking the government.
    What could the government do to stop her? What troops would they have? Would you, or anyone you know fight for Tony Blair?

    I don't see why she doesn't, she has more common sense in her slippers than Tony Blair does in his cabinet.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Vox.

    Two Words.

    <STRONG>President Thatcher</STRONG>
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Seriously tho', the monarchy is an anacronism out of touch with reality.

    Question is, are elected officials any different?

    Its easy to say "Get rid of the Monarchy", but what would you replace it with? More elections that no-one cares about? If 40% of the population cannot even be bothered to vote in a General Election, why would a Presidential election be any different?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There is very little stopping her from sacking the government.
    hahahahahahahah

    What we must ask is are we commited to the principle of a society where everyone must earn there place, where no-one should be born to a position superior to others and where all the main organs of our govt are democratically elected...

    Coincidentally the oppurtunity cost of the royals assets if they were removed must be enormous hence they are not economically useful......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent:
    <STRONG>Vox.

    Two Words.

    [qb]President Thatcher</STRONG>[/QB]

    At least she'd be democratically elected. If it's the will of the people to elect her, than that's there problem. But it would be better than an unelected monarch.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
    <STRONG>

    At least she'd be democratically elected. If it's the will of the people to elect her, than that's there problem. But it would be better than an unelected monarch.</STRONG>

    What if the Queen did a better job at running the country than president Blair...?
    Or would you still be unhappy on principal?

    I think that whatever is best for the country as a whole is more important. If the Queen or another monarch could do a better job then why not let her?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There was a letter in the Times yesterday by some republican chap who was rather concerned about how much power the Queen actually has. She has meetings with the PM every week to discuss matters of who knows what? These are held in secret and no minutes are kept. For all we know she could be exercising more power than we give her credit for.

    But is this neccessarily a bad thing? Yes I know the queen isn't elected, but she does have the advantage of being apolitical. She has no party alleigance so she can't take sides. And another thing. She has been in power for 50 years. Thats a hell of a lot of experience. She has been on tours all over the commonwealth and the world so she must know a thing or two about world affairs. And when Charles gets the throne he'll have had enough experience as Prince of Wales to know what he's talking about too. Given the choice between the Queen and someone like George Bush I know who I'd choose to be my leader.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    would you still be unhappy on principal?
    well yes because we live in a democracy and that is considered to be the best form of govt by most people in this country. Its not about who is the best leader it is about who the nation want to lead them.......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Democracy smocracy..

    Blair got into power on the votes of about 25% of the population..Thats a fucking disgrace..Democracy is all but dead in this country.

    Forget the queen, we deserve a fascist dictator in this country.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hey Balddog, In the Israel thread you were really supporting our democracy, you appear to have changed your tune <IMG SRC="confused.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg:
    <STRONG>Hey Balddog, In the Israel thread you were really supporting our democracy, you appear to have changed your tune <IMG SRC="confused.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"></STRONG>

    The system is good in theory but its become stagnant and rotten. Ive come to the conclusion that I hate most people in this country. We should be ashamed of the way we have let our country get into this shithole.

    If only we were French, then maybe people would give a fuck about things. What I wouldnt give for a (VERY VIOLENT) revolution.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    <STRONG>Democracy smocracy..

    Blair got into power on the votes of about 25% of the population..Thats a fucking disgrace..Democracy is all but dead in this country.

    Forget the queen, we deserve a fascist dictator in this country.</STRONG>

    I wonder I wonder...if the tories got in power with the same 25% would you still be so critical of democracy?

    Blair's hardly the best, but I'd take him over the tories or fascism anyday of the week.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    we have let our country get into this shithole
    I don't quite see how that is so seeing as we have one of the best standards of living in the world...... <IMG SRC="confused.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Stracha_Khan:
    <STRONG>

    I wonder I wonder...if the tories got in power with the same 25% would you still be so critical of democracy?

    Blair's hardly the best, but I'd take him over the tories or fascism anyday of the week.</STRONG>

    Er yes, I fucking well would be..Thank you very much. Im disgusted with our entire parliamentary system, that doesnt just include the labour government.

    Standards of living are not everything.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    <STRONG>Er yes, I fucking well would be..Thank you very much. Im disgusted with our entire parliamentary system, that doesnt just include the labour government.

    Standards of living are not everything.</STRONG>

    Erm. Okay.
    I wouldn't defend our system. If I had the chance I'd chuck all MP's out and start again with people who are actually representative of the masses of this country.
    I'd also like to see less of a stranglehold from EU precedent, I think our laws should be made in our country people deciding what's best for OUR country. Because what's best for mainland Europe is often not best for us.

    Yes it's bad, and there is loads of room for improvement....but is it really that bad?
    If we ARE that bothered we could put ourselves forward to become an MP? Can't we?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, IMO it is that bad..

    Whats the point of becoming an MP? People in this country are so fucking stupid, they wont do anything, EVER.

    I really despair at the state of humanity these days...Maybe nuclear apocalypse would be a good thing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You in a bad mood today Baldy? <IMG SRC="frown.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    Do you have any suggestions for improvement?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg:
    <STRONG>You in a bad mood today Baldy? <IMG SRC="frown.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    Do you have any suggestions for improvement?</STRONG>


    How could you tell <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    Up all night with sister taken into hospital with gastroenteritis...Then a nice <IMG SRC="mad.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> calming drive to stanstead airport. Then to deal with some of the local sheep round here. Thanatos is right on the mark when he describes people as sheep.

    Suggestions for improvement? Nothing short of executing every last MP currently in existance and recruiting a whole new set.

    The only thing thats going to wake up the 99% of fucktards in this country who dont bother to vote would be to reduce their money..

    If there were any decent fascist parties out there then id vote for them just to spite the rest of this fucking country.

    God I HATE PEOPLE.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    <STRONG>The system is good in theory but its become stagnant and rotten. </STRONG>

    Since 1997 Labour has created the devolved Scottish and Welsh assemblies and thrown most of the hereditary peers out of the House of lords. Why do you think the system is stagnant?
Sign In or Register to comment.