The Monarchy

[Boolean Julian]

Invictus_88

whapcapn

Invictus_88

As each day passes I become more convinced of the need to mount a revolution to restore to monarchy to power.

Bloody politicians.

Steady on now.
Democracy might not work too well, but a royalist government certainly wouldn't work any better.
To be quite honest, they're inbred and not too bright. Few people can argue with that. This doesn't really count against them as figureheads, and theyu have qualities which make them exceptionally good figureheads. But I'm not sure I'd like to see them in power...

horridness.

What a wonderful word.  

[Zoutout]

Invi: I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for arguing so funking well against the incredibly ignorance that exists.

Also, take pleasure in the fact that, before I was almst now apathetic, but you have made me a Royalist (or whichever term is best.)  

[Invictus_88]

Oh dear, that makes me far more proud than it probably should.

Lets hope I've converted a few of the people out on those threads, or at least taken the edge off their republicanism.

wink  

[illyrianth]

I have to admit, with the current debacle, otherwise known as this absurd wedding...I am rapidly losing my royalist fervour. In fact, it must be said,I am somewhat inexplicably angry at the way in which years of tradition have been stomped all over. Why doesn't he just become a Catholic while he's at it. Or Buddhist, perhaps?

There is a price to being part of the Monarchy. Sure, you can largely have what you want when you want it, but there ARE certain things to which the blood is bound to do or be, such as head of the Church of England etc...Since I personally am not a Christian, one would wonder why this bothers me one whit, but it's the TRADITION being forgotten which annoys me. Edward knew the score when he fell in love with Mrs Simpson. Why is it so hard for Charles to have the balls Edward did and make his decision? One or the other but not both.  

[Natch]

[ Message temporarily off-line ]  

[Invictus_88]

illyrianth

I have to admit, with the current debacle, otherwise known as this absurd wedding...I am rapidly losing my royalist fervour. In fact, it must be said,I am somewhat inexplicably angry at the way in which years of tradition have been stomped all over. Why doesn't he just become a Catholic while he's at it. Or Buddhist, perhaps?

There is a price to being part of the Monarchy. Sure, you can largely have what you want when you want it, but there ARE certain things to which the blood is bound to do or be, such as head of the Church of England etc...Since I personally am not a Christian, one would wonder why this bothers me one whit, but it's the TRADITION being forgotten which annoys me. Edward knew the score when he fell in love with Mrs Simpson. Why is it so hard for Charles to have the balls Edward did and make his decision? One or the other but not both.

I'm with you there, he should probably just bog off if he loves her as much as he seems to. He should follow Edward.

Besides, William would be a more suitable replacement for HW the Queen, a mon avis.  

[Invictus_88]

Natch

Okay. Flame away, Invictus. whee

I don't flame unless someone is being stupid, as opposed to misinformed or misunderstanding of the situation.

In most situations, particularly royalist/monarchist debates, I simply pull apart argument and unravel them to reveal the folly.

I shall now get to work on your post.


Regards,

Invictus  

[Invictus_88]

Natch

I'm going to swim against a very strong current here, and openly say I am definately a republican.

It's ok, I forgive you. I'll blame the media rather than any fault on your part. Most people start out as republicans until they are made privy to the facts.

Natch

And no, I'm not some 12 year old with no real argument against the royal family; I genuinely think Britain would be better off without it. I'm going to try to counter the two main arguments advocated here:

To say that Britain would be better off without it would involve countering the strongest arguments, as opposed to the two most commonly represented and oddly, the two weakest arguments. Try to counter some of the points I've made in the linked threads, if you like.

Natch

Firstly, the old tourism one.

The logic seems go something like this; Britain has a monarchy, Britain attracts a lot of tourists, therefore the monarchy attracts lots of tourists. It doesn?t take much thinking to realise the weakness of this argument. For a start we have no way of knowing what would happen to our tourism should we abolish the monarchy. There is no reason to think that people would stay away. Indeed France has a healthy tourism trade and allows visitors to enter its palaces. As a result the Palace of Versaille attracts many more visitors than Buckingham Palace. It's not the monarchy, but the buildings and customs like the changing of the guard, that attract tourists. If the monarchy was abolished, it does not necessarily mean these things would have to go too. In fact, if the monarchy was abolished, more of the palaces could be opened to paying customers, which would surely attract more tourists.

Most tourists are here for the culture or the countryside. The monarchy is a part of the culture and the Queen has done an extraordinary amount to protect the countryside.

I disagree that much income comes from people directly visiting the homes of the Royals or other such direct ways. Yet if it were not for the actions of the Queen against urbanisation of the countryside then there would be far less cause for people to visit "Britain's green and pleasant land" for it would have become for a greater part, awash with suburban sprawling.

Republicans like to try and squash the tourism argument because it gives the impression that the money we pay to the Queen outweighs that which the Queen pays to us. This is not the case. The Queen pays back over five times the amount she recieves, thus she runs at profit excluding all tourism-based factors. So even if you can prove that there would be zero drop in tourism without the monarchy, they would still give the country a great amount of income.

Natch

Secondly, about the 'loss of culture and heritage'.

I find this claim quite insulting. It suggests that, unlike France or the
USA, Britain is unable to have a strong cultural life without the royal family. Britain's culture is rich and diverse and very little of it flows from 'royalty.' Culture is music, theatre, cinema, art, pubs, clubs, festivals and rural, urban, ethnic and regional communities. The Beatles and Mick Jagger, Richard Curtis films, local pubs, Indian restaurants, fish and chips, sheep dog trials, Big Brother, Enid Blyton, and J. R. R. Tolkein are all just small parts of a culture that has developed over centuries and none owe a thing to 'royalty.' We could manage quite well without them. Our culture may even benefit from a fully democratic republican constitution. The loss of royal patronage and the move away from the London-centric focus of power may give more opportunities to regional and 'non-establishment' culture.

Tolkein was a staunch royalist and traditionalist. Anyway, I know. We can have culture without the royals. Yet the royals are still a part of the culture of the British people. Besides, most people want the monarchy to remain.
Are you saying we don't have enough 'non-establishment' ("street") culture already? eek

Natch

Look at America. True, they don't have the best leader in the world, but at least that can change in four years. Who knows how long we'll have to wait in Britain for a new head of state? Alright, it could be argued the Queen is a very good head of state, but she has been groomed all her life for the position. I'm sure you or I or anyone else could do her job if we'd been prepared for it from birth. And what happens if we get another monarch like George III, who is physically unable to fulfill the role as head of state? We can't just depend on the results of the 'genetic lottery' to have a head of state.

How many of the elected heads of state are groomed for the role from birth? None, exactly.

How many are bound by history, tradition and law to serve their country before themselves till the day they die? None. Worse than that, many heads of state (Prime examples: France, USA) serve themselves and their friends before the people. This is not the case of the British royal family, which is why the Americans and French have, in general, a high regard for our system of government.

Natch

Okay. Flame away, Invictus. whee

I refuse. I have undermined all aspects of your argument and crushed entirely others. Now, in response, please answer a few points of my own.


>Who would be head of the Commonwealth, be able to dissolve parliament, be the final stopper against a runaway government and provide a permanant figurehead?

>How would you get rid of the Queen when she has the personal loyalty of every member of the armed forces and every citizen of the Channel Islands?

>Why would you want to both deprive the UK of ?millions of income p/a from the Crown Estate and undermine the constitutional working of the country by removing such an essential component as HW the Queen?


I await your reply,

Invictus  

[Boolean Julian]

Natch

I'm going to swim against a very strong current here, and openly say I am definately a republican. And no, I'm not some 12 year old with no real argument against the royal family; I genuinely think Britain would be better off without it. I'm going to try to counter the two main arguments advocated here:

Firstly, the old tourism one.

The logic seems go something like this; Britain has a monarchy, Britain attracts a lot of tourists, therefore the monarchy attracts lots of tourists. It doesn�t take much thinking to realise the weakness of this argument. For a start we have no way of knowing what would happen to our tourism should we abolish the monarchy. There is no reason to think that people would stay away. Indeed France has a healthy tourism trade and allows visitors to enter its palaces. As a result the Palace of Versaille attracts many more visitors than Buckingham Palace. It's not the monarchy, but the buildings and customs like the changing of the guard, that attract tourists. If the monarchy was abolished, it does not necessarily mean these things would have to go too. In fact, if the monarchy was abolished, more of the palaces could be opened to paying customers, which would surely attract more tourists.

I don't have much to add to this on top of Invictus' points here, reallly.

Quote:

Secondly, about the 'loss of culture and heritage'.

I find this claim quite insulting. It suggests that, unlike France or the
USA, Britain is unable to have a strong cultural life without the royal family. Britain's culture is rich and diverse and very little of it flows from 'royalty.' Culture is music, theatre, cinema, art, pubs, clubs, festivals and rural, urban, ethnic and regional communities. The Beatles and Mick Jagger, Richard Curtis films, local pubs, Indian restaurants, fish and chips, sheep dog trials, Big Brother, Enid Blyton, and J. R. R. Tolkein are all just small parts of a culture that has developed over centuries and none owe a thing to 'royalty.' We could manage quite well without them. Our culture may even benefit from a fully democratic republican constitution. The loss of royal patronage and the move away from the London-centric focus of power may give more opportunities to regional and 'non-establishment' culture.

The fact is, however much we try to deny it, British culture is ebbing away. We are culturally weak, on the whole. Most British do not celebrate or even appreciate our national heritage. I mean, you mentioned Indian restaurants. I don't have anything against them, in fact I am a true apprectiator of fine curries. But, really, how traditionally British is Indian food?
That's not a terirbly good example actually. Many of your other examples are true examples of British heritage, but just look around you. We are slowly becoming invaded by American culture. I see it every day. The royal family is the last bastion against said cultural invasion, and without them around, we wil always retain some kind of individuality.
Oh, and Invitctus, I always though Tolkein believed in anarchy?  

[Invictus_88]

whapcapn

Oh, and Invitctus, I always though Tolkein believed in anarchy?

He did, of sorts.

I always thought that he favoured it in that the governement is too powerful and intrusive but that even a monarchy would be favoured by him if it didn't intrude upon people's lives and safeguarded the countryside against urbanity.  

[Days of Empire]

There are lots of arguments, tradition, tourism, diplomacy and so on, but ultimately it comes down to one simple fact. England would not be England without a monarch. Even the small things, like all criminal prosecutions being 'The Crown versus *insert miscreant here*' add up.

If it came to a vote, I'd definately vote to keep them.  

[Boolean Julian]

Erix Griffon

There are lots of arguments, tradition, tourism, diplomacy and so on, but ultimately it comes down to one simple fact. England would not be England without a monarch. Even the small things, like all criminal prosecutions being 'The Crown versus *insert miscreant here*' add up.

If it came to a vote, I'd definately vote to keep them.

It hardly could, though. I mean, all arguments either way aside, it is simply not realistic that the monarchy are going to be abolished. So significant a change couldn't possibly happen, unless there was an armed revolution, and I don't think many people care that strongly about the monarchy. So really, all discussion is basically a moot point.
*Thinks* Did I just admit I've made a pointless thread? I fear so...  

[Invictus_88]

whapcapn

So significant a change couldn't possibly happen, unless there was an armed revolution, and I don't think many people care that strongly about the monarchy.

It's a bit sad, maybe, but I'd take up arms over the issue of the monarchy. Though not on the republican side.  

[Manji_killer of n00bs]

illyrianth

I'm definitely with Invi on this one. Royalist to the core, I may not be Charles' biggest fan, but that's the way it goes.

I would gladly take up arms and fight to retain the monarchy, and from a self-confessed coward, that is no small thing.

I'm a pacifist, so I wouldn't take up arms to defend them, but I support the monarchy. They make alot more money than we spend on them, and they're good ambassadors for the country.  

[wodewose]

bloody Germans....