Monarchy?

[The Monkey]

Instead of ruin the UK election thread, I thought I would post a new thread on the subject. So here's the thing:
1) If you live in a country with a monarchy constitution; would you like to keep it?
2) If you don't live in a country with a monarchy constitution; imagine that you did, would you like to keep it?

 

[Razor]

Yes, definately, it keeps a firm link to the past, yet still allows for England to progress to the future. There is absolutely no harm with keeping the Monarchy in England, apart from the government money that goes to them.

I would just hate to see England end up with a Republic like France or America, it would lose the traditional values and the history and gain nothing.

 

[kirovman]

The monarchy in the UK traditionally stands for a family born into aristocracy so from that stand I am very much against it, but looking at it from another view, they do a lot of good in ways, maybe benefitting our economy and defining us in the world. They seem to go "out of their way" (quotation marks because I don't know if it's particularly straining on them) to be charitable.

They seem to be doing more good than harm, overall.

And it's good for a laugh, because one time I was in Florida and some guy said "You're British? So you are in cahoots with Queen Elizabeth?"

So I'm undecided. Some days I think it is good, some days I think it is bad. Borderline.

They get too much press though.

Edit: I also think we should keep it from what Razor said. I want a Monarchy-parliment thingy rather than a Presidential Republic - a lack of character.

Ok, I should have voted yes, keep the monarchy.

 

[Sprafa]

I must say I would not allow such a thing, ever. The simple thought of a family that gets tons and tons of money and property just because they were born in such a family disgusts me (same thing about general inheritance of absurd sums).

 

[Maxi]

If you mean a monarchy like swedens, yes.

 

[Sprafa]

If you mean a monarchy like swedens, yes.

how much moneh do they get from the Government ?

 

[DrDevin]

I live in canada and we dont get anything from them plus we pay for their plane tickets to come over and vaction/ cut a ribbon to open something. I say get rid of them and we would have more money to spend on our healthcare and education systems.

 

[The Monkey]

how much moneh do they get from the Government ?

Not much I think and most of it goes for keeping the castles in good condition ans things like that. Even though it's only some million crowns per year, it still money, and those money could be used to employ nurses and teachers.

 

[Maxi]

Yeah but it's more like a PR thing they do then control anything, and imo it gives sweden a certain status thing that Finland doesn't have.

 

[Sprafa]

Yeah but it's more like a PR thing they do then control anything, and imo it gives sweden a certain status thing that Finland doesn't have.

I have to say they sound like unnecessary government-funded celebrities.

 

[Maxi]

But zhey are cool. And hawt. Atleast the princess.

Our president isn't hawt

 

[The Monkey]

Now you wish that we hadn't lost you to Russia, don't you?

 

[OCybrManO]

I'm not sure, yet. In this hypothetical situation, am I the monarch? Until then I'll leave it in the "Undecided" category.

 

[el Chi]

I don't like the monarchy, nor do I think we desperately need them to sustain heritage, but traditionally, countries that have disbanded their monarchies go to pot for a fair few years afterwards. I mean, if we got rid of it now, we'd have a whole world of trouble on our hands. Besides, they're fairly benign.
Although I'd agree with financial restrictions - these people are obscenely rich and that's a lot of money that could go into the NHS, education or just general council funds.

 

[HunterSeeker]

I have heard that the king of sweden actually brings in more money then he costs (Tourists I think) and since he dosent have more power then your average celeberty, it can be good but he gets to live a life of luxuary and I dont think its right to inherit sush a life.

But since he is an income source I voted yes.

 

[kirovman]

I have heard that the king of sweden actually brings in more money then he costs (Tourists I think) and since he dosent have more power then your average celeberty, it can be good but he gets to live a life of luxuary and I dont think its right to inherit sush a life.

But since he is an income source I voted yes.

That is pretty much my view.

And I think we should definately abolish celebrity culture before we start to think about abolishing the monarchy. Rewarding people for being famous indeed

 

[jondy]

Absolutely; keep the monarchy. The UK's Buckingham Palace status is pretty lucrative in tourist trade anyway - but even if it weren't, I'd still support them. This might seem a little contradictory, as I'm usually pretty left wing, but as the monarchy doesn't have any real power, I'd be inclined to keep it - in a country with as much history as ours abolishing the monarchy would seem... well... treasonous

 

[jimbo118]

aren't people who live under monarchies defined as subjects and not citizens?

 

[Feath]

I see no problem with the Monarchy. I don't think having a monarchy is that bad, you could probably find lots of things which you would regard as wasting money. The UK's public image attracts a lot of tourists, so a lot of the money goes back in the economy anyway.

 

[Solaris]

The monarchy represents rich over poor, thats what I see it as in my eyes. As a UK citizen I strongly belive in the monarchy being overthrown.
The queen is not my better, I would not bow to her.

 

[ComradeBadger]

The good thing about the monarchy is they provide a non-political figurhead.

That in itself is massively important.

 

[el Chi]

Perhaps not, but the monarchy being overthrown would result in a civil war.

 

[jondy]

Perhaps not, but the monarchy being overthrown would result in a civil war.

Bring on the spatulas.

char

 

[el Chi]

The Spatula Revolution of 2005​

Got a nice ring to it, dontchathink?

 

[baxter]

get rid of them ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1848553.stm

And loose all this ? Our Royal family is a humorous distraction from real life

 

[Murray_H]

On the subject of royals

I would never bow to a royal (shake their hand, yes, as a polite gesture, but I would do that to anyone). It's obscene how someone is thought of as better because of their family tree, but I do realise that they are a huge source of revenue for the tourist industry.

 

[Septih]

the thing is that they'd get just as much money for the tourist trade if we got rid of the monarchy and opened up the royal estates to the public. France did it and they get loads of money from tours around the old palaces.

Personally i don't like the monarchy, mainly because they get paraded for being charitable. Wait a second where did those millions that the royal family donate to various charities come from? ah yes, the tax payers

 

[Mr Stabby]

I think the monarchy should go or only apply to England. If it was to go , then Britain wouldnt be the UK anymore.

 

[The Monkey]

Great Britain is just England, Wales and Scotland, right?

 

[Murray_H]

Great Britain is just England, Wales and Scotland, right?

Yep, and UK = Great Britain + Northern Ireland

 

[Razor]

"If it has got four legs and it is not a chair, if it has got two wings and it flies but is not an aeroplane, and if it swims and it is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it." (at a 1986 World Wildlife Fund meeting)

Classic, where would we be without him .

 

[kirovman]

"If it has got four legs and it is not a chair, if it has got two wings and it flies but is not an aeroplane, and if it swims and it is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it." (at a 1986 World Wildlife Fund meeting)

Classic, where would we be without him .

He's quality haha, thanks for the quotes website, baxter, I was looking for Prince Philip quotes recently actually.

GB is the British mainland (excluding NI and all the little islands).

 

[Feath]

Full name of where I live:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

 

[-### HlPwNs ###-]

yes monarchy rules. every country should put back feudal system in place so we can be peaceful peasants and only the rich go to war and not the poor.

.oO(I hope he´s kidding)

 

[Raziaar]

yes monarchy rules. every country should put back feudal system in place so we can be peaceful peasants and only the rich go to war and not the poor.

.oO(I hope he´s kidding)

Many armies consisted of vast peasant drafts. Poor still go to war. Heh. Same like today.

Anyways... I voted no to the monarchy. I don't really care if they stay or go, but their power should just really be symbolic rather than actual power. I'm a big fan of feudal systems and stuff... but these modern times? Nah.

 

[el Chi]

the thing is that they'd get just as much money for the tourist trade if we got rid of the monarchy and opened up the royal estates to the public. France did it and they get loads of money from tours around the old palaces.

Personally i don't like the monarchy, mainly because they get paraded for being charitable. Wait a second where did those millions that the royal family donate to various charities come from? ah yes, the tax payers

France did it and had a civil war and a revolution. And not just one, if my memory serves correctly.
I agree that their share of taxes should be curtailed, but we can't get rid of them. Well, not without a fight.

And if they donate their money to charity, then that's essentially the British people donating to charity, which helps make us look slightly better globally, which can't be SUCH a bad thing.

 

[jondy]

Anyways... I voted no to the monarchy. I don't really care if they stay or go, but their power should just really be symbolic rather than actual power.

Dude, that's exactly what happens right now.

 

[Raziaar]

Dude, that's exactly what happens right now.

I dunno. Their power to me seems a little more than just symbolic. I mean... if you had removed them, there would be SERIOUS repercussions. That doesn't come from a lack of power.

 

[Septih]

France did it and had a civil war and a revolution. And not just one, if my memory serves correctly.

1.) It was removal of power from a monarchy that actually did control the country(i think...)
2.) apparently we're more 'civilised' in this day and age, it probably wouldn't escalate into another civil war

And if they donate their money to charity, then that's essentially the British people donating to charity, which helps make us look slightly better globally, which can't be SUCH a bad thing.

but they get most of the credit. Its not the fact that the money goes to charity that annoys me(i'm all for it), but they get lots of praise heaped on them for doing so. So many families give money to charity, yet get no recognition, even if they are giving sizeable amounts of their income.

 

[el Chi]

apparently we're more 'civilised' in this day and age, it probably wouldn't escalate into another civil war

We may be more civilised, but that doesn't enter into it. Even if it was by national referendum, there is strong support for the monarchy and their removal would escalate into extreme violence if not full scale battles. Plus, the armed forces are sworn not to the government, but to Her Majesty. Of course, they could mutiny but I doubt the majority would.

but they get most of the credit. Its not the fact that the money goes to charity that annoys me(i'm all for it), but they get lots of praise heaped on them for doing so. So many families give money to charity, yet get no recognition, even if they are giving sizeable amounts of their income.

Fair play.