Should the UK become a republic?

[steve_spackman]

http://www.republic.org.uk/index.php

quote: "The monarchy makes a mockery of our democracy."

How bizzare

[BDunnell]

Why bizarre? We would not tolerate a hereditary principle in most areas of life, after all. It would be utterly unacceptable.

[Rollo]

NO.
Because the logistics are impossible.

Immediately you'd break up the UK legally into four nations. Legally Scotland is tied to England via the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1801, and all laws which have been passed by Westminster apply in both of them.
Wales is a subjugated kingdom and as such, do the laws passed in Westminster from after the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542, still apply? Does Wales exist afterwards as part of England and simply get resumed?
What happens to Northern Ireland? Does it from it's own separate state? How kindly would the Republic take to that? Would this cause a resumption of "the Troubles" and rekindle yet another 90 years of bloodshed?
What of England itself? Does it form its own parliament, and what happens to the assets currently vested in the Crown?

More generally, how do you split up the NHS, the MoD, the Education System, and the Inland Revenue?

The point is this, you can't simply just abolish the monarchy, because the legal ramifications are many and varied. I would suggest that to do nothing and keep a system which has kept stable government for 208 years is far more valuable than any emtional benefits that might come about because a few crusties hate the monarchy (because that's really all it amounts to).

[steve_spackman]

NO.
Because the logistics are impossible.

Immediately you'd break up the UK legally into four nations. Legally Scotland is tied to England via the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1801, and all laws which have been passed by Westminster apply in both of them.
Wales is a subjugated kingdom and as such, do the laws passed in Westminster from after the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542, still apply? Does Wales exist afterwards as part of England and simply get resumed?
What happens to Northern Ireland? Does it from it's own separate state? How kindly would the Republic take to that? Would this cause a resumption of "the Troubles" and rekindle yet another 90 years of bloodshed?
What of England itself? Does it form its own parliament, and what happens to the assets currently vested in the Crown?

More generally, how do you split up the NHS, the MoD, the Education System, and the Inland Revenue?

The point is this, you can't simply just abolish the monarchy, because the legal ramifications are many and varied. I would suggest that to do nothing and keep a system which has kept stable government for 208 years is far more valuable than any emtional benefits that might come about because a few crusties hate the monarchy (because that's really all it amounts to).

Good points there

[steve_spackman]

Why bizarre? We would not tolerate a hereditary principle in most areas of life, after all. It would be utterly unacceptable.

Why bizzare?? Well they have no clue what they are on about do they and i find it rather amusing..in a bizzare way

[Hazell B]

Why bizzare??


Because the poster is more German than than the Royals ;)

Keep them. We'd be short on tourists without them, not to mention what Rollo said :up:

[Azumanga Davo]

Keep them. We'd be short on tourists without them, not to mention what Rollo said :up:

Because the Bastille district or former palaces haven't had any success in tourism since France abolished their monarchy, am I right?

[BDunnell]

All this is beside the point. I ask again, would anyone tolerate a hereditary principle in, say, their workplace?

[Easy Drifter]

Not to mention the Constitutional mess it would leave most of the Commonwealth in where the Queen is the titular Head of State for most countries, such as Canada.

[Mark in Oshawa]

All this is beside the point. I ask again, would anyone tolerate a hereditary principle in, say, their workplace?

It isn't beside the point Ben, it IS the point. Of course we wouldn't tolerate hereditary principle in any other sphere of our lives, but this is something that your nation evolved with, much to its benefit. The people wanting to send the royal family packing will get louder I am sure when Elizabeth the Second is gone. That though is just popular culture and hatred for Charles pushing for this. IT makes no sense on your level Ben, but the Crown is sort of an institution that has made the UK unique, and it is the tie that keeps the UK together. The legalities and laws of your nation and mine are written with the backing of the royal assent. If there was a push to be a republic, you better figure the lawyers will get rich, somewhere a politician will be taking away civil rights in the rewriting of the laws, and you will gain NOTHING from any of it.

That is the real story. Those who would make the UK a republic (and by extention NZ, Australia, and Canada) would likely take advantage of this to make changes that wouldn't help anyone but themselves. Furthermore, what do we lose? Having the monarachy has given the UK the identity it has, and what that crown has often stood for is fairness, democratic liberties being protected and a sense of permanency you don't get with a Republic. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have the royals, but the benefits of them sticking around (even a doofus like Charles) still are better than the unknowns we would have with a Republic. I mean...England would be more like France...you wouldn't want THAT would you?

[Mark in Oshawa]

To understand how the rest of the world see's the Queen and Royals, just watch the way American society goes gaga when they come to the US. America fought a revolution to get ride of the UK and its King, yet the way the US media culture fawns over the royals, especially when Diana was still around was and is breathtaking.

[BDunnell]

To understand how the rest of the world see's the Queen and Royals, just watch the way American society goes gaga when they come to the US. America fought a revolution to get ride of the UK and its King, yet the way the US media culture fawns over the royals, especially when Diana was still around was and is breathtaking.

In my opinion, any fawning over the Royals, being as they are deeply unimpressive people, is pathetic as well as, as you rightly say, breathtaking. What is there to get that worked up about in these people?

[Mark in Oshawa]

In my opinion, any fawning over the Royals, being as they are deeply unimpressive people, is pathetic as well as, as you rightly say, breathtaking. What is there to get that worked up about in these people?

I happen to like the Queen. That said, I don't disagree. That isn't the point. The point is if you were a Republic in ten years, what would fill that vacuum? Would the UK really be any better off without the royal family? Think about that without putting your dislike for the royals and the whole concept into it. The UK would just be a faceless small country run by crooked politicians with no other redeeming qualities that would make it different. Furthermore, unlike their dad, Harry and Will seem to be decent guys with a sense of public service and I think if left up to them, the monarchy might just be a force for something good.

They are there to be touchstones to the past, and to remind us that our society should be more than it is, and give back to the greater good. Hypocritical with the wealth of the royals? Oh ya..I suppose, but taking the Queen's money away wont change a thing. This hatred for what the royals are and have, isn't anything good IMO. Bringing down the monarchy gives no added value to the UK. NONE.

[BDunnell]

I happen to like the Queen. That said, I don't disagree. That isn't the point. The point is if you were a Republic in ten years, what would fill that vacuum?

It have no objection to having an elected head of state, because, on principle, I do not support any form of hereditary succession. Simple as that.

[steve_spackman]

I happen to like the Queen. That said, I don't disagree. That isn't the point. The point is if you were a Republic in ten years, what would fill that vacuum? Would the UK really be any better off without the royal family? Think about that without putting your dislike for the royals and the whole concept into it. The UK would just be a faceless small country run by crooked politicians with no other redeeming qualities that would make it different. Furthermore, unlike their dad, Harry and Will seem to be decent guys with a sense of public service and I think if left up to them, the monarchy might just be a force for something good.

They are there to be touchstones to the past, and to remind us that our society should be more than it is, and give back to the greater good. Hypocritical with the wealth of the royals? Oh ya..I suppose, but taking the Queen's money away wont change a thing. This hatred for what the royals are and have, isn't anything good IMO. Bringing down the monarchy gives no added value to the UK. NONE.

I totally agree with you Mark

[Mark in Oshawa]

I totally agree with you Mark

Good Lord..you and I agree 100% on something besides the joys of a cold beer? There is hope man....

[Rollo]

All this is beside the point. I ask again, would anyone tolerate a hereditary principle in, say, their workplace?

You mean like someone inheriting the family business? Or perhaps like Rupert Murdoch who inherited The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd. off of his father Sir Keith?
Plently of businesses are passed from father to son, so are you saying that you object to this?

And really, if the head of state is elected, then that means that only someone who's popular, and/or rich and powerful is ever likely to be considered for the job. There are no such things a meritocracies in the real world. Do you really think that George W would have been elected President of the USA based on his abilities?

The Queen is someone who's been groomed for the position practically since birth, she doesn't really interfere with the affairs of government, and the residual powers that she does have are rarely tested.
If those powers were suddenly vested in an elected official, then alomst certainly, the onus wil be for those powers to be exercised because of the mandate of responsibility.

[Jag_Warrior]

To understand how the rest of the world see's the Queen and Royals, just watch the way American society goes gaga when they come to the US. America fought a revolution to get ride of the UK and its King, yet the way the US media culture fawns over the royals, especially when Diana was still around was and is breathtaking.

Yeah, but we make a big deal about Madonna, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, et al too.

They're celebs and/or curiosities to us. Nothing more really.

[bowler]

All this is beside the point. I ask again, would anyone tolerate a hereditary principle in, say, their workplace?


like VW, Porsche, and BMW?

Honda, Toyota, Ford,

all have a fair degree of hereditary power either directly or indirectly.

Kodak, Arai, Newscorp.

to name but a few

[Roamy]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

No : you need to become a territory of Pakistan

MI5 is facing allegations that it mistakenly recruited Al Qaeda sympathizers who were trying to infiltrate the British secret service.

Patrick Mercer, a Conservative member of Parliament, is demanding a probe into claims six Muslims were thrown out of MI5 because of concerns about their past.

Two of the six allegedly attended Al Qaeda training camps in Pakistan while the others had unexplained gaps of up to three months in their resumes.

Mercer, counter-terrorism sub-committee chairman, told Sky News that MI5 is believed to have detected two sympathizers at a "fairly early stage" of their secret service training.

The others allegedly did not make it through vetting procedures.

However, Mercer wants clarification on how successful the security services have been at detecting enemy infiltrators.

"This is exactly the sort of work that MI5, MI6 and the other security services should be up to," he said. "Of course, they should be attracting recruits from all sorts of different backgrounds, diverse backgrounds. The fact remains, it is not without risks... a subversive organization that is worth its salt will, of course, try to infiltrate."

A government spokesperson said the service "takes vetting very seriously."

"All candidates are required to undergo the most comprehensive process of security vetting in the UK."

[emporer_k]

Yes the UK should become a republic.

The concept of having a hereditary head of state is absurd. Would people accept hereditary Prime Ministers or hereditary doctors or hereditary scientists.

Those who think there would be a drop in tourism if we ditched the monarchy ought to go count the tourists at the palace of Versailles.

[yodasarmpit]

Monarchy should be condemned to the realms of history, if the only reason for retaining a Monarchy is to boost tourism then something is sorely wrong.

Lets celebrate and display our history, but there is no need to maintain it in a modern 21st century democracy.


Immediately you'd break up the UK legally into four nations. Legally Scotland is tied to England via the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1801, and all laws which have been passed by Westminster apply in both of them.

That's not strictly true either, Scotland and England have many differing laws already, and the dissolution of the Monarchy would not inherently lead to the break up of the Union.
The Union can survive post Rebublic.

[Daniel]

Sure hereditary rule is absurd but getting rid of the queen? Wtf does that actually achieve? This is just like the ludicrous idea of Australia removing the queen as the head of state.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Sure hereditary rule is absurd but getting rid of the queen? Wtf does that actually achieve? This is just like the ludicrous idea of Australia removing the queen as the head of state.

Exactly. It wouldn't change our lives in any way. Except the coins and stamps would have a different persons mug on them.

[chuck34]

To understand how the rest of the world see's the Queen and Royals, just watch the way American society goes gaga when they come to the US. America fought a revolution to get ride of the UK and its King, yet the way the US media culture fawns over the royals, especially when Diana was still around was and is breathtaking.

I don't understand that at all myself. I personally don't care what the royals do or don't do, or anything of the sort. They're just rich people, that have never really had to work for it. Like Jag said, just like Paris Hilton I suppose.

[chuck34]

like VW, Porsche, and BMW?

Honda, Toyota, Ford,

all have a fair degree of hereditary power either directly or indirectly.

Kodak, Arai, Newscorp.

to name but a few

On little off topic nit to pick. Honda has no hereditary power.

[Drew]

Why not privatise the royal family? If the royal family can survive that then they can stay, if not they go. They are at least god's chosen ones, so it should be a piece of cake ;)

[Rollo]

Exactly. It wouldn't change our lives in any way.

Yes it would, and quite considerably.

The Queen is technically head of the armed forces, and also has the right to withhold Royal Assent if she so chooses. She also has the power to dissolve parliament (this was actually achieved in Australia in 1975).
Assuming you simply removed the Queen and put that position up to the vote, instantly it becomes politicized.

The Parliament Act in 1911 was passed to prevent the House of Lords from preventing the passage of "money bills" and it also restricted their ability to delay other legislation to three sessions of parliament.

If the President (in place of the Queen) was of the opposite political persuasion to the Government in the Commons, then that power to refuse assent would then be held in the hands of a single hostile person without even space for debate on the Bill. They could in theory prevent the government from operating by refusing to pass budgets.

[GridGirl]

I was Christened under the Church of England denomination of the Christian faith. If we had no Royal family the Queen would no longer be the head of the church. If it happened, maybe would could all convert to become Muslims. Foutso would welcome that. :p

[steve_spackman]

I was Christened under the Church of England denomination of the Christian faith. If we had no Royal family the Queen would no longer be the head of the church. If it happened, maybe would could all convert to become Muslims. Foutso would welcome that. :p

:D

[GridGirl]

Hell, if I hadn't of had my Church of England education I might have had to go to an Islamic faith school or something. :p

I quite like the royal family. They might live in castles and extremely large houses but they are just as disfunctional as the rest of us.

Most of the English population would also need to learn the words to Land of Hope and Glory. I suppose there would no longer be any confusion when we hear the national anthem of Litchenstein. :p

[Rollo]

This is just like the ludicrous idea of Australia removing the queen as the head of state.

Aussies love the Queen, they love her so much that in 1999 they voted to keep her in a referendum. :D

[Mark]

Getting rid of the Royal family would not serve any purpose, as they don't have any direct influence over the majority of our lives.

What I would say is that they should be considerably smaller scale. There should be the queen (or other head of state) and her immediate family directly in line for the throne funded by the tax-payer. Everyone else should pay their own way, and to be fair, most of them do.

However income from inherited assests such as lands etc should go directly to offsetting the amount the royal family costs, not into their own pockets.

[Garry Walker]

Keep them. We'd be short on tourists without them, not to mention what Rollo said :up:

So you think that some tourists actually only go to UK for monarchs? Oh, I so want to see that charlie guy, so lets waste 3000 euros.

Not being in any way connected to UK, I say dump those useless idiots. No point in having them.

[Roamy]

I was Christened under the Church of England denomination of the Christian faith. If we had no Royal family the Queen would no longer be the head of the church. If it happened, maybe would could all convert to become Muslims. Foutso would welcome that. :p

You are well on your way to adding to the 1.3 billion of them. Can I sell you a pashima? :p I see they burnt up a family of christians over the weekend so converting will be much easier for you.

[Rollo]

You are well on your way to adding to the 1.3 billion of them. Can I sell you a pashima? :p I see they burnt up a family of christians over the weekend so converting will be much easier for you.

Why is this necessarily an issue for you? After all, you are a staunch supporter of a nation of no state religion, and in which the congress is prevented from making laws on that same subject.

[grungex]

On little off topic nit to pick. Honda has no hereditary power.

Neither does Kodak.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Rollo...you can keep bringing up common sense, but there is a sizable number of people in the UK and the Commonwealth who want to kill the Monarchy.

The motives they have are based on jealousy, and political agenda's often. Still haven't seen one GOOD improvement made to soceity where the Monarchy is dumped. The Swedes, Danes and Norwegians all have Royal families, and so does the Netherlands. All are progressive modern democracies and function quite well. No one wants to dump THEIR Royals.

No other Royal family is so entertwined and history and a nation's culture as the Windsors and their predecessors. It is what makes Britain and the Commonwealth nations unique and no one can convince me what anyone gains by dumping them. You point out the legal mess and people glass over that......obviously not lawyers are they?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Why is this necessarily an issue for you? After all, you are a staunch supporter of a nation of no state religion, and in which the congress is prevented from making laws on that same subject.

It is an itch he wants scratched. It is Fousto, he wakes up in the morning wanting to pick on Muslims. What would be fun if there was one on this forum...but alas, they have less a sense of humour than some of the guys on this thread.

The US has no state religion. Novel concept that...separation of Church from State. Still doesn't mean Americans don't believe in God...it might be why they get nervous tho around Muslims..and 9/11 might have had something to do with that...

[BDunnell]

The concept of having a hereditary head of state is absurd. Would people accept hereditary Prime Ministers or hereditary doctors or hereditary scientists.

Apparently, yes they would, if there was a long history of the hereditary principle operating in these walks of life.

[Mark in Oshawa]

It have no objection to having an elected head of state, because, on principle, I do not support any form of hereditary succession. Simple as that.

Neither do I, but the same lame anti-monarchists in Canada who worshipped PM Trudeau would likely turn around and support his son (an MP now from Montreal) for PM given half a chance for no other reason than the fact he is his son. God knows the boy hasn't done half of what his old man did before entering politics.

In princple you are right Ben, but in practice the real world has evovled in a different manner and the royal family is as much part of British culture as anything else, and what it means and symbolizes for the most part has been beneficial.

Again, no one has given me one plus to having the monarchy abolished. Yes, we all agree hereditary succession makes no sense, but again, where does the UK gain by electing a figure head? Just more places for corrupt people to try to buy political influence.

[rah]

Dump the royals. That we can all move on. Australia can become a republic just like everyone else and we can put someone who actually matters on our coins, like some US presidents.

[Rollo]

Rollo...you can keep bringing up common sense, but there is a sizable number of people in the UK and the Commonwealth who want to kill the Monarchy.
The motives they have are based on jealousy, and political agendae often.

I fully understand this, and adressed with the very first post I made in this thread:

I would suggest that to do nothing and keep a system which has kept stable government for 208 years is far more valuable than any emotional benefits that might come about because a few crusties hate the monarchy (because that's really all it amounts to).

With regards the emotive argument, I personally don't understand it. How exactly does a country become... better by being a republic? Would England be more English? Canada more Canadian? Australia more Australian?

The arguments for Scottish independance are different from either Australia or Canada becoming a republic. Scotland IS ruled from Westminster, whereas both Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc are economically and politically independent. Effectively all dominions became separate kingdoms apart from the United Kingdom via the Statute of Westminster 1931.
Those issues are entirely different.

[rah]

I guess Australia would be more Australian if we had an Australian head of state. Same goes for the other countries in the empire. Forgive me for asking, but when was the last time the Royals actually did anything helpful?

[Rollo]

but when was the last time the Royals actually did anything helpful?

I don't know what sort of answer would appease you but the Queen did withhold assent to the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill on 26th Jan 1999.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmbills/035/1999035.htm
The bill in essence would have handed the power to strike Iraq with military action to the government of the day, as opposed to the Queen herself as head of the armed forces.

Handing military power to politicians in any form in government is potentially a dangerous thing.

[rah]

I don't know what sort of answer would appease you but the Queen did withhold assent to the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill on 26th Jan 1999.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmbills/035/1999035.htm
The bill in essence would have handed the power to strike Iraq with military action to the government of the day, as opposed to the Queen herself as head of the armed forces.

Handing military power to politicians in any form in government is potentially a dangerous thing.

You mean giving the power of the armed forces to a democratically elected government is more dangerous than giving it to someone who only had to be born to qualify?

[Rollo]

You mean giving the power of the armed forces to a democratically elected government is more dangerous than giving it to someone who only had to be born to qualify?

Yes.

Governments, even democratically elected ones are made up of politicians. I wouldn't trust a politician with a box of pencils, let alone expense accounts, duck islands, fake emails about utes, or God forbid... the military :eek:

[rah]

Yes.

Governments, even democratically elected ones are made up of politicians. I wouldn't trust a politician with a box of pencils, let alone expense accounts, duck islands, fake emails about utes, or God forbid... the military :eek:

Well dude, who do you want to control the military then? By the way last time I checked, the ADF is controlled by the AUS Gov.

[chuck34]

Yes.

Governments, even democratically elected ones are made up of politicians. I wouldn't trust a politician with a box of pencils, let alone expense accounts, duck islands, fake emails about utes, or God forbid... the military :eek:

Yes politicians are a dirty breed. But they do have to answer to someone. Who does the Queen/King have to answer to? At least if a poitician does something the people don't like they can be voted out of office.

[Rollo]

Well dude, who do you want to control the military then? By the way last time I checked, the ADF is controlled by the AUS Gov.

Where did you check? Surely not the legislation?

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s68.html
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 68
Command of naval and military forces
The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor‑General as the Queen's representative.
Oops.

The Governor-General of Australia has in theory the same powers as the Queen herself, being her representative and explicitly laid out in the constitution.

[rah]

Yes politicians are a dirty breed. But they do have to answer to someone. Who does the Queen/King have to answer to? At least if a poitician does something the people don't like they can be voted out of office.
Exactly my point. Polies are crooked but they always have to answer to someone.

[rah]

Where did you check? Surely not the legislation?

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s68.html
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 68
Command of naval and military forces
The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor‑General as the Queen's representative.
Oops.

The Governor-General of Australia has in theory the same powers as the Queen herself, being her representative and explicitly laid out in the constitution.
Ahh well forgot about her. Bloody queens representative chosen by the PM, hardly worth being there. Get rid of the lot.

[Jag_Warrior]

Senatus Populusque Romanus

[Brown, Jon Brow]

It have no objection to having an elected head of state, because, on principle, I do not support any form of hereditary succession. Simple as that.

Is this opinion based purely on the ideology that you believe in? Rather than weighing up the true positives and negatives of having a Royal family?

[cali]

Exactly. It wouldn't change our lives in any way. Except the coins and stamps would have a different persons mug on them.

errrr...you would not pay for their huge expenses anymore. I cannot understand just one thing, how can You brits tolerate the fact that You hard working "normal" people are covering all the expenses of royal family and their very expensive hobbies?

:eek:

[Cooper_S]

Senatus Populusque Hibernia...


As I come from the Republic of Ireland, I am firmly in the Republic camp as a preferred system, as to my mind no man/woman has a right to my loyalty or servitude by fact of his/her birth...

Now that said the question asks should the UK become a Republic, in short NO but the Monarchy as it stands is too powerful by right and should be overhauled to reflect modern Britain. But there is no need to change to a full republic when the country has 1000 years of almost unbroken Monarchy... They do more good than harm and the pageantry and ceremony is wonderful and unique.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

errrr...you would not pay for their huge expenses anymore. I cannot understand just one thing, how can You brits tolerate the fact that You hard working "normal" people are covering all the expenses of royal family and their very expensive hobbies?

:eek:

So are you trying to tell me that I wouldn't have to pay for a Presidents expenses then?

Plus, due to the circular flow of income some of the money generated from the tourists (visiting the UK to see the Royals) comes back to me anyway :p

[cali]

So are you trying to tell me that I wouldn't have to pay for a Presidents expenses then?

Plus, due to the circular flow of income some of the money generated from the tourists (visiting the UK to see the Royals) comes back to me anyway :p
President - 1 person (together with family max. 4-5). President usually has some kind of political power as well.
Royal family - how many persons you have them in UK? How many castle's to be taken care of? How many vehicles to be taken care of, how many royal ceremonies to organize? And the list goes on ... your royal family has some huge amount of property to be taken care of. No political power almost at all (please correct me if i'm wrong)

Agreed that from the tourists you generate a some amount of income.

But c'mon, You practically are paying for bunch of people to have fun at your expense.

Not that i am against the Kingdom, but just some of the things happening in UK are not making sense to me

[schmenke]

Ahh well forgot about her. Bloody queens representative chosen by the PM, hardly worth being there...

Well, not quite. The GG is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the PM.

[schmenke]

President - 1 person (together with family max. 4-5). President usually has some kind of political power as well.
Royal family - how many persons you have them in UK? How many castle's to be taken care of? How many vehicles to be taken care of, how many royal ceremonies to organize? And the list goes on ... your royal family has some huge amount of property to be taken care of. No political power almost at all (please correct me if i'm wrong)

Agreed that from the tourists you generate a some amount of income.

But c'mon, You practically are paying for bunch of people to have fun at your expense...

Not really. The Royal Family has been paying taxes since 1992(?).
Also, I believe there is a yearly revenue from the Queen's estate lands that is paid to parlaiment, although I'm not quite sure how this works.
As I understand it, the net cost to the British taxpayer is minimal.

[cali]

Not really. The Royal Family has been paying taxes since 1992(?).
Also, I believe there is a yearly revenue from the Queen's estate lands that is paid to parlaiment, although I'm not quite sure how this works.
As I understand it, the net cost to the British taxpayer is minimal.

Ok, if this is true then i'm fine with it ;)

[Mark in Oshawa]

I find most of the people who would dump the Monarchy, whether it be down under, in Canada or in the UK are usually left of center, usually for "Change" and cant seem to grasp that your countries moral center needs an anchor. Now I know a few are giggling at the "moral center" phrase, but I think the monarchy is more or less a compass to which all politicians have to point to at some point. The Americans and Republican forms of government such as that in Ireland have a President with more or less power than the Queen, but in all cases are elected, and are essentially poltiicans. An effort is made at times to be less partisan by these leaders, but in the end, they are still the same morally and politically suspect twits we elect to every office right down to the local alderman. They answer to political parties, and they answer to whomever they think will benefit their career.

A Queen or King doesn't. What is more, in the modern forms of this consititutional monarchy, the Sovereign is still above politics, can override (with little political legitmacy but they have always have had a knack of using the power just enough to remind the PM that they have to answer to someone) in extreme circumstances. The GG's in Canada and in Australia have both at one point it their history acted on orders from the throne to nullify power grabs in the respective legislatures in their histories. History has shown both moves were seen as the right ones.

Now you can argue the whole idea of a royal family being in charge is silly and hereditary succession is all wrong, and in theory you are 100% right. But in the case of the UK and the Commonwealth, it hasn't been a problem AT all. What is more, as it has been pointed out, the Royals now pay their bills and taxes, and the charity work they have often supported has done a lot of good. They more than justify their existance if for no other reason than putting yet another slimeball politician on another pole to climb. Very few politicians of any stripe have ever been held in the same sort of esteem by their citizens as the Queen has.

Now if Charles becomes King and does something stupid......lol...maybe all of this changes, but I doubt it. QE2 has proven herself to be a classy but pretty smart lady, and I am glad to be living in a time where she has been the Sovereign, even if it is for the most part a figurehead. It is still reassuring tho to know if a PM in Canada loses his mind and starts doing stuff that is clearly beyond his reach legally, the legal authority of the crown is there to put a stop to it, and no one in this country would really have an argument for it. Once every 100 years or so they step in. Too bad you Yanks didn't have someone to keep Nixon, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Bush and Obama in line.....

[Daniel]

I find most of the people who would dump the Monarchy, whether it be down under, in Canada or in the UK are usually left of center, usually for "Change" and cant seem to grasp that your countries moral center needs an anchor. Now I know a few are giggling at the "moral center" phrase, but I think the monarchy is more or less a compass to which all politicians have to point to at some point. The Americans and Republican forms of government such as that in Ireland have a President with more or less power than the Queen, but in all cases are elected, and are essentially poltiicans. An effort is made at times to be less partisan by these leaders, but in the end, they are still the same morally and politically suspect twits we elect to every office right down to the local alderman. They answer to political parties, and they answer to whomever they think will benefit their career.

A Queen or King doesn't. What is more, in the modern forms of this consititutional monarchy, the Sovereign is still above politics, can override (with little political legitmacy but they have always have had a knack of using the power just enough to remind the PM that they have to answer to someone) in extreme circumstances. The GG's in Canada and in Australia have both at one point it their history acted on orders from the throne to nullify power grabs in the respective legislatures in their histories. History has shown both moves were seen as the right ones.

Now you can argue the whole idea of a royal family being in charge is silly and hereditary succession is all wrong, and in theory you are 100% right. But in the case of the UK and the Commonwealth, it hasn't been a problem AT all. What is more, as it has been pointed out, the Royals now pay their bills and taxes, and the charity work they have often supported has done a lot of good. They more than justify their existance if for no other reason than putting yet another slimeball politician on another pole to climb. Very few politicians of any stripe have ever been held in the same sort of esteem by their citizens as the Queen has.

Now if Charles becomes King and does something stupid......lol...maybe all of this changes, but I doubt it. QE2 has proven herself to be a classy but pretty smart lady, and I am glad to be living in a time where she has been the Sovereign, even if it is for the most part a figurehead. It is still reassuring tho to know if a PM in Canada loses his mind and starts doing stuff that is clearly beyond his reach legally, the legal authority of the crown is there to put a stop to it, and no one in this country would really have an argument for it. Once every 100 years or so they step in. Too bad you Yanks didn't have someone to keep Nixon, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Bush and Obama in line.....
Couldn't agree more!

I'm all for change if there is something to be gained but there is precisely nothing to be gained from removing the royal family.

P.S I'm a bit left of centre ;)

[rah]

Nah, still prefer a democracy. The monarchy is just a useless waste of time with absolutely no purpose.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Nah, still prefer a democracy. The monarchy is just a useless waste of time with absolutely no purpose.

Rah...do you vote? YES. You live in a democracy whose mechanisms and traditions are PROTECTED by the crown. The Queen (or King in the future) does NOTHING to interfere with the wishes of the people until something against the constitution occurs. It is a RARE once in a century thing, partially because it is a legal dead end to mess with. If a PM decides he isn't leaving office (like that President in Honduras), the Crown says...yes you are, and CAN send in the Military. Now I suppose there is some wise guy out there stating "yes, whats to stop her doing it anyhow?" but the point is, the Crown would lose all legitmacy if they interfered where they shouldn't. The Crown is a symbolic thing more than anything, BUT it is how the legal system of 3 major nations plus the UK have set themselves up and it has WORKED.

Don't make me vote for some jerk I wont have time for to be my leader. The Crown is above politics, and it is why Daniel and I can disagree on almost anything but still agree who is the final boss.

[chuck34]

Don't make me vote for some jerk I wont have time for to be my leader. The Crown is above politics, and it is why Daniel and I can disagree on almost anything but still agree who is the final boss.

The final boss is "We the People". At least in the US, but rightfully all "people" are the boss (rights bestowed by God). Now as you pointed out earlier, there have been Presidents that have over stepped their bounds. However, they have also been "taken care of", by the people.

Johnson: Basically forced not to seek a second term.

Nixon: Forced to resign.

Carter: Voted out

Clinton: While I didn't like his policies too much, he didn't do anything un-constitutional. Healthcare was defeated, and after that he moderated a bit. He was however impeached (I know the merrits/reasons can be debated)

Bush: While he did get elected twice, I don't think that the GOP could have nominated anyone, short of Jesus Christ himself, that could have won this year. And He would have struggled. :-)

Obama: He (and Congress) is getting his hand slapped pretty hard right now about this healthcare deal. And I doubt we'll see anymore "stimulus" or TARP type programs be passed despite how much he may want them. And if what Geitner and Summers have been talking about, raising taxes, goes through ... Well you can bet dollars to donuts he won't see a second term.

So "We the People" have a fairly good track record of stepping in and "correcting" our politicians. It may not happen as fast as you or I would like, but I would bet the Queen/King don't act too much faster either.

[Robinho]

do people outside the UK honestly belive we are ruled by a monarchy and have no democracy? it seems that way from a few posts i've read here.

we have a mulit party electoral system to elect local and national representative in parliament and ultimately the party and prime minister in charge of the country.

the Royal Family has no political power, its role is purely a decorative one. the queen is offically the head of the state and the church, but practically has no power over anything. they give us a distinction over many countries hence why any day of the week you will see thousands of tourists taking pictures of Buckingham palace, the changing of the guard and anywhere the Queen is.

they also do a nice job of promoting the UK when they go on their little world visits, and people tend to flock to see that too (not sure why, but i guess its just eth ultimate in celebrity culture)

if we the people want to change the direction of the country and the politics we vote for someone else to be in power, the queen will swear them in and read out their policies, but have no real input.

if we disposed of the monarchy we'd be in no different a position politically 99% of the time, unless we had an elected president, and they ended up being a different party from the Government. to be honest that would make bugger all difference, as parties losing their power tend to struggle to pass any policy that is remotely unpopular anyway.

the Royal Family has no bearing on the everyday life of most of the UK, but i think we'd be worse off without them - they are part of a national identity and a great draw for the tourists - and in todays celebrity obsessed culture its nice to have some well educated non chavs taking the attention away from Jordan and Kerry Katona - the people we really should abolish if we want to make the country better

[chuck34]

do people outside the UK honestly belive we are ruled by a monarchy and have no democracy? it seems that way from a few posts i've read here.


If you were refering to me then I am sorry that I may have come across like that. Of course I know that the UK has elected officials, and that the monarchy doesn't have much power. That is the reason that I think you guys should go ahead and get rid of them.

However, if what has been said here is true, that they do pay their own way, and that the bring in tourists. Then fine let them stay. It really doesn't effect me in any way.

But think about it this way. If they were no longer "royals", they'd still be rich, and still be paying those taxes. And as for tourism, do you really think that people are comming to see the Queen? Or just to see her house(s) and the changing of the guard, etc? Do you think anyone would notice if they kept on doing the changing of the guard while there was no one to guard? Do you think people would stop visiting Buchingham Palace if there was not Queen inside?

[Jag_Warrior]

Too bad you Yanks didn't have someone to keep Nixon, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Bush and Obama in line.....

We did and we do: the American people. You've selected people whose politics you don't agree with or whom you don't like... and yes, at least one of them violated the law. But why would we support a (true) dictatorship, where a make believe king or queen could override the will of the people, or interfere? What makes that person so smart & wise? What qualifies that person to make the decision as to who is fit and who is not? Is it something about a belief that God has something to do with choosing royals? Riiiight. :rolleyes:

I think people who want to live under royals, as "subjects", should do so. Good for them. And anyone who tries to make that happen here would and should get a 7.62mm between the eyes. We opened a big can of whoop ass the last time that was put forth. I would have thought that lesson would have been longer lasting. The Roman Senate tried to reform the Republic after Caligula was killed. Too bad they weren't successful. It was a parade of idiotic emperors who led Rome down the path to eventual destruction and ruin. A good many of them were killed by various forces, like the Praetorian Guard, only to be replaced by a bigger idiot. But I guess there was no divine power to step in and choose a "better monarch" for them. :dozey:

[Jag_Warrior]

do people outside the UK honestly belive we are ruled by a monarchy and have no democracy? it seems that way from a few posts i've read here.

No, I'd say most of us realize that they are basically figureheads... nostalgic pieces of your past and history.

[Robinho]

If you were refering to me then I am sorry that I may have come across like that. Of course I know that the UK has elected officials, and that the monarchy doesn't have much power. That is the reason that I think you guys should go ahead and get rid of them.

However, if what has been said here is true, that they do pay their own way, and that the bring in tourists. Then fine let them stay. It really doesn't effect me in any way.

But think about it this way. If they were no longer "royals", they'd still be rich, and still be paying those taxes. And as for tourism, do you really think that people are comming to see the Queen? Or just to see her house(s) and the changing of the guard, etc? Do you think anyone would notice if they kept on doing the changing of the guard while there was no one to guard? Do you think people would stop visiting Buchingham Palace if there was not Queen inside?

it wasn't just you, and i didn't think people really thought that, but i had to check!

honestly, yes, i think if there was no royal family inside the numbers visting the likes of Buckingham Palace would be greatly diminished, and much of the pomp and ceremony associtaed, like the changing of the guard etc would likely be abolished with it.

i'd see losing the monarchy as another step to homogenising everything - if it doesn't conform and stands out then get rid - i understand that not everyone gives a rats ass about the monarchy, but as long as its not costing more than its worth (not just in a monetary sense) then i can see no call for abolishing something thats part of our national identity

[chuck34]

honestly, yes, i think if there was no royal family inside the numbers visting the likes of Buckingham Palace would be greatly diminished, and much of the pomp and ceremony associtaed, like the changing of the guard etc would likely be abolished with it.

i'd see losing the monarchy as another step to homogenising everything - if it doesn't conform and stands out then get rid - i understand that not everyone gives a rats ass about the monarchy, but as long as its not costing more than its worth (not just in a monetary sense) then i can see no call for abolishing something thats part of our national identity

I don't think that's right. When people go visit Buckingham Palace do they actually see the Queen? I can only speak for myself as I have not real data, but I would want to see the Palace with or without the Queen, and I would think others would too. Just as millions of people go to see Versailles in France, without a monarch. Why would the changing of the guard be abolished? If that's what people want to see why not keep it going?

Your last paragraph seems to be the consensous opinoin. Keep them around for the tradition, and the national identity. If that's what the people of the UK want (and I have to assume they do as I don't know any large movements to get rid of them) then I have no problem with that. I just know I don't want a monarch over me.

And looking at it from their point of view for a sec., why do they want that? Sure they're rich, but they don't do anything really. That's probably got to be a bit boring. And if you are only kept around for the tourists, wouldn't you feel a bit "used" after a while. Come to the UK and look at our living museum pieces. Doesn't sound like too much fun to me. But then again, I'm American, not a British Royal.

[Robinho]

i don't now a massive about their day to day lives i must admit, but from the bits i have seen on the various documentaries and the like it seems their lives are very full, pretty much a full time job of appearances and meetings and plenty of official functions etc. whilst it might not be exactly hard work, i do think they are pretty busy - i'm sure they are not sat about watching CSI Miami and the Simpsons all day, drinking tea and eating biscuits.

i agree, i wouldn't want to be governed by a monarchy either, but i'm not so i'm happy i guess.

i agree also that the tourist spots would still be popular, but i do think Buck House, Windsor Castle and the like would have their popularity vastly diminished without the "royal" attahcment. i don't neccesarily understand it myself, but plenty of pepole go there for that reason, perhaps for the novelty value for tourists from countries where there is no Royal family and perhaps hasn't been for a very long time.

i might be wrong, but i believe that it is the US that is the biggest collector of all memorablia and the like connected with the Royal Family - more of an obsession with some over there than it is in the UK - again i'd hint at that being a by product of the novelty factor of a Royal family - i guess its like living history for some people?

[race_director]

Funny thought

The country which ruled almost the entire world. itself is trying to free itself :)

[Rollo]

The final boss is "We the People". At least in the US, but rightfully all "people" are the boss (rights bestowed by God). Now as you pointed out earlier, there have been Presidents that have over stepped their bounds. However, they have also been "taken care of", by the people.

Whilst you are correct about the "we the people" being the final stay in the United States, one should be careful not to compare the systems of government in the US and the UK as though they operated the same.

The biggest single difference which renders your comparison almost irrelevant is that the executive of the nation in the US is vested in the President (and through his Secretaries), whereas the executive in the UK and indeed every Westminster Parliament (Canada, Australia etc etc etc) rests in the parliament itself. Furthermore the monarch is restricted in their powers by the Bill of Rights 1689.
And as for whether the Prime Minister can be impeached or even Parliament itself be dissolved, is covered under other provisions of the law.

If you want to be truly pedantic on this matter, the Westminster Parliament system is in essence far more democratic than the American system by virtue of the fact that every single member of the cabinet is chosen from a body of elected persons, whereas not even one member of the American Cabinet is chosen by "the people".
The process for removing a cabinet member in the US is largely difficult process, whereas in a Westminster Parliament, it can be done without even so much a sitting of Parliament.


So "We the People" have a fairly good track record of stepping in and "correcting" our politicians. It may not happen as fast as you or I would like, but I would bet the Queen/King don't act too much faster either.

The Monarch or their representative has an even more robust record of removing Prime Ministers because of ineffectiveness or incompetence. The most notable examples being the removal of Stanley Baldwin by "no confidence vote" and the whole dissolution of the Australia Parliament in 1975 by the Queen's Representative the Governor-General after the Parliament became unworkable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

[chuck34]

Whilst you are correct about the "we the people" being the final stay in the United States, one should be careful not to compare the systems of government in the US and the UK as though they operated the same.

The biggest single difference which renders your comparison almost irrelevant is that the executive of the nation in the US is vested in the President (and through his Secretaries), whereas the executive in the UK and indeed every Westminster Parliament (Canada, Australia etc etc etc) rests in the parliament itself. Furthermore the monarch is restricted in their powers by the Bill of Rights 1689.
And as for whether the Prime Minister can be impeached or even Parliament itself be dissolved, is covered under other provisions of the law.

If you want to be truly pedantic on this matter, the Westminster Parliament system is in essence far more democratic than the American system by virtue of the fact that every single member of the cabinet is chosen from a body of elected persons, whereas not even one member of the American Cabinet is chosen by "the people".
The process for removing a cabinet member in the US is largely difficult process, whereas in a Westminster Parliament, it can be done without even so much a sitting of Parliament.



The Monarch or their representative has an even more robust record of removing Prime Ministers because of ineffectiveness or incompetence. The most notable examples being the removal of Stanley Baldwin by "no confidence vote" and the whole dissolution of the Australia Parliament in 1975 by the Queen's Representative the Governor-General after the Parliament became unworkable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

Yes, yes. That is all well and good, and well known to boot. I wasn't saying that our sytem was better than yours, just that the monarach wasn't needed. The faults of our system are well known and I agree that the US does NOT have a perfect system. Just as the UK, Canada, and Australia do not have perfect systems. In fact I seriously doubt any system run by man will ever approach "perfection". But the systems of the US, UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, and others are about as close as we are likely to get, IMHO.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Rollo, you can toss in the King/Byng standoff in Canada in the 20's. Mackenzie King wanted to form a government as the second largest party while the largest as in disarray. I forget all the details, but it was a powergrab, and the GG (representing the Monarchy) called an election to straighten out the mess. Many people were upset a governor-general would overrule parliament, but legally it was the role that the monarchy or its reps provide.

The role of the monarchy is to be non-partisan and more less act as a watchdog on overzealous politicians, not to actually rule. However, no one has really pointed out to me how the country would be made BETTER by their being tossed.

To you Americans, The people are a good watchdog after a President has made a mess for 4 years, and no constitutional monarchy would step in with a merely inept PM, the parliament would dispose of him MUCH faster. Americans are not lost without having a monarchy, but I sometimes wonder how it is BETTER in any way that the system I live under now. Both work pretty well, but at least I know with the Monarch,there is someone above the fray of the dirty infighting of politics who still in theory has some power to stop the madness.

[chuck34]

Rollo, you can toss in the King/Byng standoff in Canada in the 20's. Mackenzie King wanted to form a government as the second largest party while the largest as in disarray. I forget all the details, but it was a powergrab, and the GG (representing the Monarchy) called an election to straighten out the mess. Many people were upset a governor-general would overrule parliament, but legally it was the role that the monarchy or its reps provide.

The role of the monarchy is to be non-partisan and more less act as a watchdog on overzealous politicians, not to actually rule. However, no one has really pointed out to me how the country would be made BETTER by their being tossed.

To you Americans, The people are a good watchdog after a President has made a mess for 4 years, and no constitutional monarchy would step in with a merely inept PM, the parliament would dispose of him MUCH faster. Americans are not lost without having a monarchy, but I sometimes wonder how it is BETTER in any way that the system I live under now. Both work pretty well, but at least I know with the Monarch,there is someone above the fray of the dirty infighting of politics who still in theory has some power to stop the madness.

Don't forget Mark, the UK has had a string of "good" monarchs. But it's not impossible to have "bad" ones either. It's happened before, and I'll bet it'll happen again (probably not in the near future). But there isn't really anything that can be done about that, unless I've missed it, I don't really study the monarchy.

[Mark]

As I see it one of the roles of the monarch is to make sure the democratic process proceeds as it should. Say for example Gordon Brown refused to call an election on some flimsy pretext or refused to step aside if he lost (look at Iran!). Then I would expect the monarchy to step in, in the way the Iotola failed to do in Iran.

[DexDexter]

As I see it one of the roles of the monarch is to make sure the democratic process proceeds as it should. Say for example Gordon Brown refused to call an election on some flimsy pretext or refused to step aside if he lost (look at Iran!). Then I would expect the monarchy to step in, in the way the Iotola failed to do in Iran.

Monarchy is a good business as well. I'm sure they have lots of magazines, for example, devoted to the Royals. At least in Sweden they do.

[Mark]

Monarchy is a good business as well. I'm sure they have lots of magazines, for example, devoted to the Royals. At least in Sweden they do.

Magazines? Not really. But the daily newspaper press do get a lot of column inches from them!

[V12]

The way I see it, the Royal family don't have any power, they don't interfere with my life in anyway, so I have no objection to them sticking around.

If the UK became a republic tomorrow, I wouldn't shed too many tears either. Doesn't bother me in the slightest either way.

Of course, if the Royals had medieval-style rule over the country, then that would be another thing altogether.

[Mark in Oshawa]

As I see it one of the roles of the monarch is to make sure the democratic process proceeds as it should. Say for example Gordon Brown refused to call an election on some flimsy pretext or refused to step aside if he lost (look at Iran!). Then I would expect the monarchy to step in, in the way the Iotola failed to do in Iran.

That is what a lot people don't grasp. The Monarch actually protects the people from the tyranny of an elected official and/or his party if they start to ignore their limitations. Wacky for people for Republics to understand, but it works for us....

Iran it didn't happen because the elected leader often cant serve without the ok of the Ayatollahs and pass their religous "purity" test.