The Monarchy

[Invictus_88]

A Lost Iguana

The fate of the Royals is dependent upon the whim of the populace and Parliament.

..and that she is the only valid head of the commonwealth. That she fulfils essential constitutional roles. The royals do a lot of good for the national finances. That she commands the armed forces and the unconditional fealty of the Channel Islands.  

[Foetus In Fetu]

I don't believe that it would be knocking a huge chunk out of our history. Knocking a huge chunk out of our history would be erasing all record of the fact that we ever had a monarchy, not simply abolishing it; that would be consigning it to history.

I mean, what is the point of history if it's completely invalidated by the fact that its records are no longer current?  

[davidcrossfan06]

The monarchy is an excellent example of how to care for the elderly. Why stop that? They don't really do anything, exactly.  

[Khorkalba]

Foetus In Fetu

I don't believe that it would be knocking a huge chunk out of our history. Knocking a huge chunk out of our history would be erasing all record of the fact that we ever had a monarchy, not simply abolishing it; that would be consigning it to history.

I mean, what is the point of history if it's completely invalidated by the fact that its records are no longer current?

*Sigh* History = Culture. That's the point. Castles are no longer in use... we have them in records, so why not demolish them to make room for modern industry? Because it's what's known as CULTURE and HERITAGE.

The Egyptian pyramids are no longer serving the original purpose they were built for. Should they be demolished as well? No, because they are a part of what makes Egypt, Egypt. rolleyes See what i'm saying?

Royalty is a part of this country. To get rid of it would not only be like taking a chunk out of history, but a chunk out of our identity as a nation.  

[Foetus In Fetu]

You'll notice that I never advocated abolishing the monarchy, but I'd be inclined to disagree with you if there were a real benefit to abolishing the monarchy on the grounds that much of the population does not identify with having the royal family as a part of their culture. Most teenagers, I believe, see the royal family as an archaic tradition; either it's out of date and they want it gone or it's quaint but serves no real purpose other than to attract tourism. I don't feel that having a monarchy is necessary to identify as being British, it isn't like we're the first or the only country to have one.

And even if it were such an important part of British culture, that doesn't merit its being upheld, especially if there are real benefits to be gained by abolishing it.  

[Khorkalba]

...and what are these "benefits"?  

[A Lost Iguana]

Longbow UK

...But it would be like taking huge chunk out of our history and culture. neutral If you're going to get rid of the Royal family you may as well knock down every castle that still stands, you may as well burn and destroy every last historical artifact we still have. You may as well industrialise the entire country, modernising every last inch of it. Frankly I would rather be dead than see that happen.

Times change; tradition is never the best reason to retain something if it has outlived its usefulness. The current system does serve a purpose, but you cannot make a universally claim that it will always serve a purpose.

Longbow UK

...and what are these "benefits"?

It would reduce some of the burden on the taxpayer, the money could be diverted toward other noble areas in need of extra funding. It remains to be seen how affectionate the public is about the monarchy. From what I have gathered, a majority do not care about Charles and Camilla; one could then assert that the public's interest in the Royal Family is dwindling. Does the public favour replacing the current monarch with a democratically elected head of state? You cannot deny that having a Royal Family implies that the citizens of this country are mere subjects of someone whom is better merely by birth. Some may not agree with that notion.  

[Invictus_88]

A Lost Iguana

Longbow UK

...and what are these "benefits"?

It would reduce some of the burden on the taxpayer, the money could be diverted toward other noble areas in need of extra funding. It remains to be seen how affectionate the public is about the monarchy. From what I have gathered, a majority do not care about Charles and Camilla; one could then assert that the public's interest in the Royal Family is dwindling. Does the public favour replacing the current monarch with a democratically elected head of state? You cannot deny that having a Royal Family implies that the citizens of this country are mere subjects of someone whom is better merely by birth. Some may not agree with that notion.

No no no no no. Just no. Dammit.

They bring in far more money than they cost, and that's entirely excluding such hazy things as tourism. The abolition in the name of fiscal efficiency is a common but wholly invalid one.

Public apathy is quite a long walk from public opposition. Whether you like it or not, you are a subject. You can't theorise your way out if that. I am a subject of HM the Queen, that cannot be changed and I don't not really consider it to need changing.

If money is your concern, then keep them. It's far more financially beneficial than getting rid of them.  

[Boolean Julian]

A Lost Iguana

Longbow UK

...and what are these "benefits"?

It would reduce some of the burden on the taxpayer, the money could be diverted toward other noble areas in need of extra funding. It remains to be seen how affectionate the public is about the monarchy. From what I have gathered, a majority do not care about Charles and Camilla; one could then assert that the public's interest in the Royal Family is dwindling. Does the public favour replacing the current monarch with a democratically elected head of state? You cannot deny that having a Royal Family implies that the citizens of this country are mere subjects of someone whom is better merely by birth. Some may not agree with that notion.

However, (if I'm going to take this seriously), there are many counter benefits that people have prevously listed. However, Foetus In Fetu never said there were benefits to the abolition of the monarchy, simply that if there were, she would probably advocate said abolition.  

[Invictus_88]

[ Message temporarily off-line ]  

[A Lost Iguana]

What? I have not suggested I want rid of them, I was merely pointing out "benefits" that may arise from removing the Royals. Did you miss the post earlier in the thread where I said I did not care, but I would prefer to have the Queen as HoS than someone like Jacques Chirac or George Bush? XD

Invictus_88

They bring in far more money than they cost, and that's entirely excluding such hazy things as tourism. The abolition in the name of fiscal efficiency is a common but wholly invalid one.

I can't open the website for the Crown Estate, so I cannot scrutinise the full figures but I will concede that the assets are making more money for the taxpayer that is being pumped into the Royals. Then again, the Crown Estate owned by the Monarch in trust of the people; it is, effectively, the people's money anyway.

Invictus_88

Public apathy is quite a long walk from public opposition. Whether you like it or not, you are a subject. You can't theorise your way out if that. I am a subject of HM the Queen, that cannot be changed and I don't not really consider it to need changing.

My point about apathy is whether the public would be more interested in having an elected Head of State than the current apathy in the current hereditary system.

I do not care whether I am a subject or not, but there may be some whom do not like that state of affairs (a former flatmate of mine at university despised it, for example).

Invictus_88

If money is your concern, then keep them. It's far more financially beneficial than getting rid of them.

Money is not my concern. I believe that the monarchy does generate revenue. However, I do not agree with the idea that if, and only if, the current constitutional monarchy is in place that such funds are generated.

There is a strong ideological principle to assert that the Head of State should be meritocratic instead of hereditary; and apart from that, I have no real opinion on the matter.  

[Invictus_88]

Ah, sorry. Seems I didn't read the earlier posts of yours.

The Corwn Estate is owned by the Monarch in trust of the people, but it still belongs to her and her family. It is simply that she is effectively bound to serve the people of the UK and the Commonwealth.

Ugh, lol. I'm unconvinced! People don't seem terribly motivated about party politics in the UK today, but then you metion the monarchy and a lot of people have quite strong feelings. As seen a lot on here.

Meritocracy got us Tony Blair.

Enough said.

xd  

[50ny4]

Okay first of all: NO Don't get rid of the monarchy! Although freaking hillarious they are a valuable part of the history of England...if they were gone my entertainment of the news would be shot.

That being said....yes i find them amusing and must honestly say its much better than having some bloody president go to war with everything.

so GO MONARCHY!!!  

[Bono Vox]

the monarchy is great! heart  

[smoking_hippy]

God save the Queen!

(Damn link doesn't work)