Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,574
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
One thing that I still haven't heard from republicans is a convincing argument as to how we would be better off without the monarchy.
Poll: Why does England still have a royal family?
- Thread starter theforce
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,574
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
I was pointing out that she isn't English. It is a term often used by foreigners to single her out as representing England rather than the entire UK.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,564
- Location
- Warwickshire
That's fine, but you said that England doesn't have a royal family; yes it does.
In a democracy our MP's would be allowed to discuss it - they are not.
The discussion isn't even allowed to happen (regardless of if the monarchists would win or the republicans would.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
As already said, the income from tourism is defiantly of benefit to the UK. Same goes for their ambassadorship. I'm not so sure about the superior riches that goes with it though. The royal wedding of a future king (not current) is a great British hallmark but at the expense of whom?
I'm therefore in the middle a bit.
I'm therefore in the middle a bit.
Jersey
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
If there were a need to have the discussion, the discussion would happen because we would change the rules. It wouldn't be an issue because the monarch wouldn't pull rank. If they did, then your revolution may have a bit of support, but until then it's a non-issue.
Well because of the status of the monarchy (being a head of state with no power) we live under semi-tyranical rule of the prime minister in that he rules under "the royal prerogative" on the basis they are the head of the elected house so they must ultimately know best.
Which sticks us in a situation where government (the prime minister) is free to do what ever they want with the country and it's citizens have very little (if any) say or power to change it. This is shown clearly in the Iraq war and all the mad counter terrorist legislation (legally we can't take a photo of a police officer because of this).
We end up with a very undemocratic democracy because the heads and facilitators of it have very minimal checks and balances to it, oddly common law is the only effective one as no one has ever been arrested and convicted of photographing a police officer as its stupid but its still no way to run a state.
I'm not sure how you got your view of parliamentary process.
I agree that the UK democracy is not very democratic, for want of a better word, but that has little or nothing to do with the existence of a monarch. The UK system is undemocratic due to the limited ability provided to the electorate to shape policy with the exception of a vote every five years. Yes, there are various groups who lobby politicians, some of whom manage to become sufficiently organised or loud enough to seemingly make progress but that is about it. As a result, parliament can, and often does, simply ignore public opinion. That has nothing to do with the monarchy.
I know exactly how it happens.
The win/lose part was speaking in the long term (based on the desires of each group & how it's voted).
The fact is that currently MP's are firmly told to shut up the second they mentioned anything which is anti-monarchist.
Could be worse. In 1575, one MP, Peter Wentworth, was sent to the Tower for a month for suggesting that Elizabeth I was not without fault.
I'm also french, and I think monarchy is a good idea. In fact, giving /more/ hereditary powers sounds like a great plan.
Let me explain.
"democracy" in it's various shape and form is currently completely broken; there's a basic issue where people who want power for power sake "play" for the rest of the population a tune that is written by the lobbies that put them in power. That's more or less the thrust of it. You just have to look at the original "anti war" obama/cameron, pre-election for a simple example.
So, we get a succession of ineffective, corrupt leaders, from the top down. They all want power for power sake, and by the time they get there, they had to make so many deals than they end up as puppets themselves.
Now, if we had a hereditary head of state, we very likely would have someone inefficient, incapable most of the time -- but in the light of it, would it be REALLY different ? And at least, once in a few generation, we might just get a blooming genius that would not only be trained since birth, but also be more or less incorruptible and have the time (luckily) to make changes that would have a long term impact on the country. It worked before after all, there were a few excellent monarch, amongst the bad.
Would it be just or equal etc etc ? hell no, but it's neither at the moment anyway, so…
Same applies for the "house of lords" -- IMO they are supposed to be composed of people who /don't want to be there/ and would prefer to do whatever else they want to do instead. They are SUPPOSED to act as a brake for whatever stupid short term solution the elected chamber tries to push for their own interests. And wether they are inbred/drunk/stupid doesn't really matter as long as they are not replaced by other cronies of the current party.
And mind you, here I make a case for royalty, but it could be a different system. We could decide that power goes to someone who doesn't want it oh a pseudo random basis for all I care. "heredity" is a way of selecting one if them, but it could be short-straw for all I care, as long as we can make sure the process can't be manipulated as it is now…
Let me explain.
"democracy" in it's various shape and form is currently completely broken; there's a basic issue where people who want power for power sake "play" for the rest of the population a tune that is written by the lobbies that put them in power. That's more or less the thrust of it. You just have to look at the original "anti war" obama/cameron, pre-election for a simple example.
So, we get a succession of ineffective, corrupt leaders, from the top down. They all want power for power sake, and by the time they get there, they had to make so many deals than they end up as puppets themselves.
Now, if we had a hereditary head of state, we very likely would have someone inefficient, incapable most of the time -- but in the light of it, would it be REALLY different ? And at least, once in a few generation, we might just get a blooming genius that would not only be trained since birth, but also be more or less incorruptible and have the time (luckily) to make changes that would have a long term impact on the country. It worked before after all, there were a few excellent monarch, amongst the bad.
Would it be just or equal etc etc ? hell no, but it's neither at the moment anyway, so…
Same applies for the "house of lords" -- IMO they are supposed to be composed of people who /don't want to be there/ and would prefer to do whatever else they want to do instead. They are SUPPOSED to act as a brake for whatever stupid short term solution the elected chamber tries to push for their own interests. And wether they are inbred/drunk/stupid doesn't really matter as long as they are not replaced by other cronies of the current party.
And mind you, here I make a case for royalty, but it could be a different system. We could decide that power goes to someone who doesn't want it oh a pseudo random basis for all I care. "heredity" is a way of selecting one if them, but it could be short-straw for all I care, as long as we can make sure the process can't be manipulated as it is now…
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
You do realise this is rather common in a democratic republic and by no means related to monarchism? The US have the same issue.
The photography and police officer thing is just Police officers misunderstanding the legislation. The vast majority of the time, there is nothing stopping you taking a photo of a police officer in a public place.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 3,354
- Location
- South North West
The real royalty live in the City now. 
The tourist Royals live in what amounts to a gilded zoo cage... who'd want their lives?
In my youth I'd have turfed them all out on the streets. As I get older and less stroppy I'm prepared to accept the argument that they act as fairly revenue-neutral caretakers to some of the nation's assets. Those tourist attractions don't look after themselves, after all.
I think there will be major changes once the Queen dies though. She has a fairly unique position, with her experience stretching back over so much important modern history. That buys her respect from some of even the most ardent republicans.
The tourist Royals live in what amounts to a gilded zoo cage... who'd want their lives?In my youth I'd have turfed them all out on the streets. As I get older and less stroppy I'm prepared to accept the argument that they act as fairly revenue-neutral caretakers to some of the nation's assets. Those tourist attractions don't look after themselves, after all.
I think there will be major changes once the Queen dies though. She has a fairly unique position, with her experience stretching back over so much important modern history. That buys her respect from some of even the most ardent republicans.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,574
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
OK - maybe I was unclear. Our current monarch does not hold the title of "Queen of England"
Brighton also has a queen. However it would be advisable to refer to Elizabeth II as the brightonian queen.* You also wouldn't refer to the brightonian royal family.
*There others who would challenge that claim.
It's completely different within most republics, you use the American case for their involvement within Iraq but that was still reliant on the support of congress and all actions of the American President (who fulfils most the roles of the PM here) are ultimately bound by the support of congress, or risk the case of impeachment if they are circumventing this process, none of which is true to our system of constitutional monarchy.
Ah sounds about right, it was a while ago and it did confuse me at how no one seemed to not see it as beyond stupid.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,247
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Just look at the worldwide interest in William & Kate, the publicity events such as weddings and official visits gives the country is worth its weight in gold.
The queen is an amazing ambassador for the UK, she's almost universally loved worldwide.
The queen is an amazing ambassador for the UK, she's almost universally loved worldwide.
we get 10-20x more income from the crown estates than we spend on the royals.
the estates are OWNED by the Windsor family but the rent from them goes to the gov.
if we didn't pay for the royals then the lands would default back to them.
ergo, it's cost effective.
the estates are OWNED by the Windsor family but the rent from them goes to the gov.
if we didn't pay for the royals then the lands would default back to them.
ergo, it's cost effective.