If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
the monarchy - what to do
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3701086.stm
what would you do with it
IMHO i think its the least bad option we have, we couldnt have a president here, itd be a goal for all fuckin celebs, and well the elections etc would be an utter joke to democracy, and also the queen has virtually zero power anyway, other than deciding prime minister on a hung parliament, which isnt too much since its a hung parliament anyway
a president would do more harm than good
what would you do with it
IMHO i think its the least bad option we have, we couldnt have a president here, itd be a goal for all fuckin celebs, and well the elections etc would be an utter joke to democracy, and also the queen has virtually zero power anyway, other than deciding prime minister on a hung parliament, which isnt too much since its a hung parliament anyway
a president would do more harm than good
0
Comments
This would be a good start
they bring in money because of the tourist attraction that comes with them
Why?
How does it contribute to British society in a positive way?
As I stated before they couldn't be more out of touch with the population if they tried.
people like matadore say that they attract tourism therefore more money, but considering the monarchy costs the taxpayer £60 million a year, i don't think the economyt is benefiting much from tourists coming to see the "great british monarchy".
Because it has given us hundreds of years of political stability, it is the basis of our constitution, it is far better than the alternatives, it brings commerce and tourism to the UK.... thats the top end of a very long list of positive factors.
It doesnt matter, because they dont voice their opinions on issues which really matter.
i nearly pissed myself laughing at that.
Why is that? Britain is one of the most stable countries in the world, and has been for hunderds of eyars. If you dont know why, I suggest you pick up a history book.
britain got rid of the monarchy as the ruling form of government because of it's incompetences, the monarchy has absolutely no control over political matters, i think the king/queen can decide who becomes prime minister in a hung government but thats irrelevant, the monarchy has been a source of hatred as far back as the war of the roses, even further, you read the history books.
Youve missed the point completly. The monarcy is the reason why we havent had a violent revolution in this couhntry like there have been in other countries, most notably France and Russia. Hence, we have been free to develop our constitution over time, the result being it is the best and most flexible of any constitution, anywhere in the world.
They built the Empire often in the name of the Crown, but that doesnt matter. I am defending the constitutional role the Monarch plays in Britain, hence no powers.
I know you are a die hard Irish republican so I can guess why you would think that. The real deal is quite the opposite, all classes have constantly loved the Monarch in Britain, look at George III and Pitt the Younger, the mass hysteria when Queen Victoria died. You really need to study the constitutional role the Monarch has played in Britain, since the time of Charles II at least.
the queen and her jolly bunch may seem like a drain on public money but they also bring in a lot of money via increased turism and stuff.
though i think that the monarchy should have jobs and be a little more involved with the public....
About a pound for every person. Which is sod all.
Oh? Didn't they have the Civil War, the Commonwealth, the Restoration, the Glorious Revolution, the Pretenders, the state of near-revolution we reached after the Napoleonic Wars and the General Strike in your timeline?
Personally, I find this quite worrying, but to be honest, if you're looking to introduce a role of President we really need to start from scratch with a constitutional convention and true seperation of powers.
The money could be spend on hospitals, schools, roads and other useful stuff though.
I'm halfway with this. They do fuck all really but without them we wouldn't have their tourism or things like the prince's trust and things. I think I'd rather see them leave though from a modern point of view.
Sure, but none of those were nearly as destructive or revolutionary as the French or Russian revolutions, now were they? What I am talking about is happenings where the very structure of the constitution is shifted and the country undergoes a fundemental change in its beliefs and goals in a very short space of time, and that has never happened in the UK, primarily due to the constitutional monarchy in place since 1688.
There wasnt a 'state of near revolution' after the Napoleonic wars, dunno where u got that from.
It's ridiculous, especially in this day and age, that these ordinary people, just like the rest of us, still have a lot of the power, just for what family they're born into. They should have to work to earn respect, just like the rest of us.
The monarchy does bring in far more in tourism than is spent on it.
If YOU had read the history books, you would know that this was not true.
That'd be why there are no royals to be seen on Britain's most popular attractions then (London Eye and Tower of London).
And that'd be why republican France gets more tourists than Britain.
As for President Blair, I agree that it is a most unsavoury thought... but then again, at least we would have the power to remove him from office after 4 years... unlike our royal friends.
Spain has a Royal Family. I couldn’t care less whether the Spanish keep it or get rid of it. May I ask why the British Royal Family is of such great concern to you?
As for our Royal friends, they technically have power however they never exercise it they’re of little concern to me. Any major change to the status of the Monarchy I think would unnecessarily and dangerously divide the country, as the majority of Brits support the status quo I don’t think this is really an issue. The Royal Family has no impact on most people’s lives, little money would be saved with a Republic. It’s fine as it is.
As for France getting more tourists – unsurprising. It’s a very nice country…They’ve got the South for sun, the Alps for skiing, Paris for sightseeing, etc.
You wouldn't consider that little bit of regicide and Republic in the mid-17th century a 'fundemental change' in the country? After the handover of 1688 (which was basically a case of the landowners and businessmen selling the country to a Dutch man), we had to deal with the Stuart Pretenders.
As to the situation in this country after 1815, go and look at any reasonably detailed history and you'll see that the situation was dangerous and difficult; I mean, Castlereagh went as far as to suspend habeas corpus, revolutionaries were meeting in secret, the countryside was aflame with rumour, and dragoons were being used against peaceful demonstrations. Don't make the mistake of assuming that because revolution didn't happen, that it couldn't happen.
Now, I'm not saying that the UK has had anything so traumatic as the French or Russian revolutions in recent memory, but the myth of stable, steady Britain, is just that; a myth created to support the general myth of 'this scepter'd isle', with it's line of kings traced all the way back to Alfred the Great.
History is typically a hell of a lot messier than it seems at first glance.
don't worry folks ...this greatest of dysfunctional soap opera families is and will fade away ...
id like to see less royal titles as a whole but on the whole the main royal family is okay
and we did have a violent civil war, but ir wasnt so one sided, so in the end they settled for a constitutional head of state, and since then parliament has been rather effective in stopping complete war