British Monarchy - Views...

Von Smallhausen said:
Government popularity fluctuates, things happen that make them less popular as we are seeing today.

I think the monarchy seems to have that popularity and stability through such times.
Click to expand...

How, we never see them?

Political popularity has little to do with the monarchy, all together in my opinion.

They are apolitical. They are not involved in Parliament what so ever in any practical sense, or the day to day running of our lives.
 
Last edited:
For

Generate loads of money from tourism
The crown estate gives the government more money than the Royals get so it is beneficial from a finical point of view.
Easily identifiable figure head
Commonwealth loves the them, (Australia voted to keep them, twice!)
Excellent ambassadors
Promotes National Pride
Link to 1000 years of history


Against

No real power any more
Promotes an anachronistic class system
Behaviour of some of the members, now more 'celebrities' than Royals





To be honest I tried my best to be fair but the entire argument against is 'We don't like it that some people are born rich and others aren't' which could be applied to any family with money. I would like to see if someone can come up with a better one.

Personally I'm in favour of the Monarchy. I'd also happily give them more power, (though technically she has all the power she needs now, she just doesn't use it).
 
Personally i think we should bring back the guillotine for public display of exacutions, but only for treason and related crimes.

believe it or not, this current government removed the laws against treason, as such brown sold all our gold and they sell out our country lock stock and barrel.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
OK then BH, they bring no stability at all.
Click to expand...

No, they are a part of the establishment. Or furniture if you want. Everyone knows the connection between the family, London and the rest of the country.

I do not think they bring political stability, no. I do not think we would be any less or more stable under a different style of democracy. They do not underpin 'us' or the principle of government.

I am open to persuasion if you bring it..
 
Biohazard said:
How, we never see them?

Political popularity has little to do with the monarchy, all together in my opinion.

They are apolitical. They are not involved in Parliament what so ever in any practical sense, or the day to day running of our lives.
Click to expand...

They are some of the greatist ambasordsers in the world, who are respected around the world, they give continuity though many goverments to the rest of the world. They are trained from birth, electing some one to do that job would be a disaster and you would only get a fraction of the service.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Nearly all their wealth and property is theirs and would remain theirs.
We would have to elecet and pay for some pleb who is rubbish at the job.
The royal family are trained from birth, well respected around the world and are the best ambasodrs available to represent us, they are also a constant unlike an elected party. They bring in huge amounts of tourism. Not only should they stay they should get back the powers they have lost and be able to use them, to keep parliment in check.
Click to expand...
I do agree we should keep the monarchy for now, however some of the usual arguments for keeping it are a bit thin. My argument is its working ok at the moment so why rock the boat.

I so no reason why we couldn't elect someone into a non-political ambassador/head of state roll who could fill the position held by the Queen without much change. It would just mean we might end up with someone a bit more interesting who has a better connection with the people. Maybe someone you can have a proper conversation/interview with rather than the usual pointless idle small talk.

Also do the visitors really come to see the Queen or do they come to see the palace and the changing of the guards etc. Who gets to see the Queen anyway? I've never see her and I live here. All you do is stare at the palace and wonder if she’s home.
 
Last edited:
I mean they are a kind of rock if you like. Conservative to Labour on the political side of things is one thing.

The Queen is apolitical, has the interests of the country at heart and is not soured by party politics or political persuasion. That is the stability I mean.
 
AcidHell2 said:
They are some of the greatist ambasordsers in the world, who are respected around the world, they give continuity though many goverments to the rest of the world. They are trained from birth, electing some one to do that job would be a disaster and you would only get a fraction of the service.
Click to expand...

They give the establishments continuity, not government.

I do not accept that governments around the world would be undermined if it were not for the Crown figurehead.

It simply isn't the case.

If they all died tomorrow, the world wouldn't stop.

Trained from birth. Well that raises a snigger. :)
 
Von Smallhausen said:
I mean they are a kind of rock if you like. Conservative to Labour on the political side of things is one thing.

The Queen is apolitical, has the interests of the country at heart and is not soured by party politics or political persuasion. That is the stability I mean.
Click to expand...

But there is no practical involvement here, in the UK, with her.

So it amounts to my gran having the same sentiments.
 
I like the Queen, but not the rest of the royal family - to me, they're the ultimate benefit scroungers. And they're not even British, they're German! Which reminds me of Top Gear, about the Bentley Brooklands review:

James: You said there it was like a slab of old England.
Jeremy: Yes.
James: But Bentley is owned by VW, that car was styled by a Belgian and it was engineered by a man called Ulrich Eichhorn. Doesn't sound very British.
Jeremy: James, James, the Queen is German.
James: Yes.
Jeremy: You don't sing "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles" everytime she comes on the television, do you?
James: Well, I do actually...
Click to expand...
 
Biohazard said:
They give the establishments continuity, not government.

I do not accept that governments around the world would be undermined if it were not for the Crown figurehead.

It simply isn't the case.

If they all died tomorrow, the world wouldn't stop.

Trained from birth. Well that raises a snigger. :)
Click to expand...

yes the uk as a hole, monarchy isn't just about goverments.
Life would go on, but we would lose a lot of our uk intrests and future intrests. They are respected on the international stage. That is much more portant than joe blogs in England.

Yes surprisingly some jobs you need yo be trained from birth. This is on such job. An elected figure head would do a crap job.
 
I don't really accept the tourism argument. Paris attracts more visitors than London and we all know how the French dealt with their royal family. In any case, should tourism even be a consideration when deciding the best form of government? Surely there are more important factors.
 
Haiku said:
I don't really accept the tourism argument. Paris attracts more visitors than London and we all know how the French dealt with their royal family. In any case, should tourism even be a consideration when deciding the best form of government? Surely there are more important factors.
Click to expand...
Monarchy is not just about goverments as uk citizens see it. Tourism is a rebut agaisnt the cost issue.
 
The monarchy is a terrible system, the only thing worse is every alternative suggested, which would also cost much more, given that the royal family and their assets make a net profit for the country (civil list cost vs crown estate income).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom