Is it time to ditch the Monarchy?

[Blah11]

& Sorry but I love the duke of edinburgh Hes so rude.

 

[aliss]

I have a picture of the freakin' queen on my money and on my desk at work (government job) and I don't even live in England!!!! Yeeesh

 

[Midnight_Fairy]

I voted no - its fine as it is

 

[AppleBlossom]

I don't think we should get rid of them. I think they serve a purpose. Tourism, they sponsor a lot of charities etc. I do however, think that the money they get should be cut to just the reigning monarch and spouse

 

[TattiesMum]

So do you all feel that they are better than you by right?

 

[redpoppy]

So do you all feel that they are better than you by right?

Hell yeah!




Sorry just being facetious.

I do think they're doing quite well considering they do have this whole divine right thing going on . I mean, if it were me I'd be TOTALLY corrupt. That's why it's good to have some old money, and the fact they are burdened by duty means they generally tend to not do so badly in my opinion. The only argument I've heard that's convincing against the monarchy is that it's a little cruel to them to have to be burdened by these things. If I'm honest I would not like the pressure, but I would like the millions and the privileges. Maybe it evens out?

 

[smokey]

So do you all feel that they are better than you by right?

But its only realy the older monerchy thats where they are by birth.
The upcoming wedding proves that birth isnt everything as Kate middletons father is a businessman and her mother was a air hostess and the family as nothing to do with royalty araristocracy at all.

All it realy is when it boils down to it is a name and a job like taking over the family business and I think the harry and william generation is going to be a whole massive shakeup for the monarchy once they are ion more power as they are alot more down to earth, have their own jobs, earn their own money and still are a public face while actualy being out in the public.

For the majority of it they dont have that much more rights then the common people as they are still acountable for most things.
And as for better then me then probably also yes, when was the last time I raised or donated millions to charity or represented my country.
They have alot more responsability and hardships then most would realise.

 

[jenny_wren]

i'm all for the royal family

i wouldn't want to be a member of
it however ... but it's what makes us
british, getting rid of them would be
such a shame, i like it the way it is

​

 

[PeanutBean]

I haven't answered the poll, whist being a fan of democracy and believing there should only be elected representatives of state I've not thought far enough to know what I'd do about it!

I agree with all the stuff Tattiesmum has said.

Smokey - you mentioned that Kate is just normal as her mum was an air hostess etc. True to a certain extent but they are still millionaires and she still went to super posh school. Plus she is apparently the first 'commoner' (I quote the Guardian) in 240 years to marry an heir to the throne. Besides which she is not the one in line to the throne.

On the prime minister thing I agree that it is somewhat irrational and certainly not democratic that someone in power by birth gets to oust an elected representative. We have a system of no confidence in both the prime minister and the government. All the parliamentary systems that involve the monarchy could easily be replaced with elected ones. Aside from the cost of the monarchy the power to interfere with the process of democratic politics is possibly the thing that most bothers me.

I wouldn't call myself an anti-royalist but I can't think of any rational undefeatable arguments not to be one.

 

[smokey]

I haven't answered the poll, whist being a fan of democracy and believing there should only be elected representatives of state I've not thought far enough to know what I'd do about it!

I agree with all the stuff Tattiesmum has said.

Smokey - you mentioned that Kate is just normal as her mum was an air hostess etc. True to a certain extent but they are still millionaires and she still went to super posh school. Plus she is apparently the first 'commoner' (I quote the Guardian) in 240 years to marry an heir to the throne. Besides which she is not the one in line to the throne.On the prime minister thing I agree that it is somewhat irrational and certainly not democratic that someone in power by birth gets to oust an elected representative. We have a system of no confidence in both the prime minister and the government. All the parliamentary systems that involve the monarchy could easily be replaced with elected ones. Aside from the cost of the monarchy the power to interfere with the process of democratic politics is possibly the thing that most bothers me.

I wouldn't call myself an anti-royalist but I can't think of any rational undefeatable arguments not to be one.

A millionare yes but its self made money not "old" money, her father worked and earnt all his money to pay for the best education he could for her so it just goes to prove even a little girl from a working class family can grow up to be a princess (bet she never imagined shed ever be a real one when she was little)

She may not be in line to the throne but her husband to be is and come on we all know its realy the wives behind the scenes that pull most of the strings
What im saying is hopfully she has had instilled in her a working effec from her parents to work hard to acheive your goals that and the fact that William has a job, clearly he doesnt need to money wise but the fact is he still worksd, he still has to put in a certain amount of hours a week, he still earns a £40k a year wage (im hoping though most of that is donated) he still trained to go out and rescue people same as his brother trained to go out and fight representing his country somthing that hasnt been done by royals for a few hundres years.

So I honestly think that their generation of reining will be completly different and a refreshing change to the current and they will be a more down to earth moncarchy for their country.

 

[beckibee]

Who would do their job?

The monarchy represent over 3,000 charities.

They carry out over 2,000 engagements each year.

Acts of Parliament still have to be approved by the reigning Sovereign, and they still have the power to dispel a current prime minister.

The Queen acts as the head of state, and preforms all the duties such as receiving international ambassadors and heads of state, supports diplomatic and economic relations in the commonwealth, state activities, festivities, etc.

The Armed forces are headed up by the Queen, and there is no way I would swear an oath to follow a Prime Minister who is as interchangeable as a pair of pants. I don't know anyone I serve with who would either.

As 'Head of Nation', The Queen's role is less formal, but no less important for the social and cultural functions it fulfils.

These include: providing a focus for national identity, unity and pride; giving a sense of stability and continuity; recognising success, achievement and excellence; and supporting service to others, particularly through public service and the voluntary sector.

A democratically elected President could act as Head of State and perform all of the duties associated with that

Charities could find patrons quite easily amongst the myriad of celebrities looking for exposure - it's not like the Royals actually fund the charities financially in any way, and I sincerely doubt that people choose to give to individual charities based on who their patron is. The same goes for the majority of 'engagements'.

Yes the armed forces swear allegiance to the Queen, as do Members of Parliament ... but really shouldn't they be swearing allegiance just to their Country and the people who live there (not to a Prime Minister who is just an elected representative of those same people)? Again it's not as though the Queen pays for the Armed Forces is it?

Personally I find the idea that an unelected person CAN dismiss an elected Prime Minister abhorrent - let alone that they have to approve democratically debated Acts of Parliament.

I also don't believe that a Monarchy is essential for providing a focus for national identity, unity and pride - there are a great many Republican countries (think USA and France) who have a much more developed sense of National Pride than we do here in Britain and I'd be willing to place a pretty hefty bet that 'the monarchy' is a loooong way down the list of answers for most people if asked 'what makes you "British" '.

There are a lot of myths surrounding the royal family's 'contributions' to Britain imho ... the biggest being their cost. 40p per family or whatever it is is JUST the cost of the civil list - it doesn't include ANY of their security costs, travel. upkeep of state owned properties and all sorts of hidden extras that we aren't allowed to know about (the true cost is even exempt from the Freedom of Information Act).

The other biggie is that they bring tourists to the UK .... but I ask you, how many tourists come to the UK to actually SEE the royals? They come for our rich history and to see the buildings etc. If the royal family were not there then their state owned properties (which we pay for anyway) could be opened to the public and would undoubtedly attract even more visitors Tourists don't go to the Palace of Versailles to see royals because there aren't any, but they still flock there in droves.

Polls like the one the BBC ran are completely meaningless I wonder what proportion of the public even knew there was a poll so it's hardly a true representation of people's feelings on the matter (a bit like those face cream adverts where 80% of women agree and the small print at the bottom of the screen reveals that only 44 people were polled )

For me the most important question isn't about cost etc though it's this.....

Do I believe that the Queen and her family are fundamentally superior to/better than me, you and everyone else in this Country?

I could have said something along these lines my self. Not a fan of them to be honest, i agree with all your point.

Another one for me is the killing of the tigers in 1975 that the queen stood smiling next to after they were shot. Yes i know it was 1975, but it takes a certain type of person to be able to put a bullet through one of those, and i dont think your mentality would change all that much! Plus the countless other creatures that were barbarically murdered??

No, not superior/more important than me at all! haha

 

[Nibblenic]

Im on my phone atm so cant reply properly
But no one has mentioned that the queen deffender of the faith and also has a huge role in religion aswell. She is also not just the queen to us but whats left of the common wealth which i think we would struggle to hold ties to without that binding force.

 

[Midnight_Fairy]

NO NO NO I love the royal family!

 

[flubdub]

I voted, 'They should be removed and not replaced at all'. Theyre a waste of time. I know a lot of people come over to see B.Palace and bring tourism with them, but apart from that, I cant see what theyre good for tbh.

 

[Every Rose]

I voted for the third option but I would say security should cover their children until they reach the age of 18 (or until they finish university if they go) as well.

I would rather have the Queen or any one of the royals than any of the politicians* any day. In fact I think the Queen would have done a better job than most of the prime ministers we have had running things since she came to power.

ETA: *Except Ed Miliband. At the moment I love him. If he turns out to do a good job then he could be prime minister and the Queen could adopt him and make him King and I'd be happy with that too!

 

[Midnight_Fairy]

I voted for the third option but I would say security should cover their children until they reach the age of 18 (or until they finish university if they go) as well.

I would rather have the Queen or any one of the royals than any of the politicians any day. In fact I think the Queen would have done a better job than most of the prime ministers we have had running things since she came to power.

 

[lynnikins]

im not even british but i dont think England would be the same without the royal family im from NZ where its constantly debated about becoming a republic so well versed in the argument about what the royal family does and doesnt bring to the table and its even less in NZ than here we dont benifit from tourism etc...

I think though there would be such a great hole without the Royals its not only part of history but its part of this country that should have a future too. yes a monarchy might not be trendy and cool in todays world and might not benifit alot but this country would be very different without it and the USA and France are hardly shining examples of non monarchial democracy are they?? really ???
Sweden does a fine enough job with their monarchy and I hope the younger Royals who will one day be the ones wearing the important crowns can do us all proud too, like it or not from outside the UK then the UK is seen as something different and interseting because of the Royals without them then it would just be another European city with old buildings which in reality would fall into disrepair and be torn down if the Royals were removed because the Royals are the ones who maintain them anyway

 

[Sarahkka]

As another voice from the colonies )), I am not particularly bothered by them (as in, I have better things to do with my time than work towards their abolishment), but I definitely think they have lost their relevance for most of the Commonwealth countries.
Having said that, I do like the parliamentary system.