18 Sep 06
3 edits
Originally posted by Seitse[/i][/b]I'd settle for the monarch remaining in place, with no constitutional powers, on a salary (say, the same as senior civil servant).
Yeah, I meant absolute monarchy as real monarchy.
Interesting point: If the Queen is legally disempowered,
would you accept her existence as a mere symbol? (astronomic
budget included)
Is there a recent nation-wide poll on sympathy regarding the
royalty? ([i]I see no other way of demonstrating that they
at least serve as a source of social cohesion ...[text shortened]... rt of a gratitude thing for the
construction of the attractions that currently exists nowadays.
Their houses and estates would become public property (maybe they could keep a small one).
I'm not aware of any such survey, but you'd find it would vary a lot by location - in the south of England, you'd get more support for the monarchy.
Edit - found this small survey from 1998. Doesn't have much to say about social cohesion etc. though. http://www.mori.com/polls/1998/demos98.shtml
18 Sep 06
Originally posted by RedmikeFair proposal.
[/i]I'd settle for the monarch remaining in place, with no constitutional powers, on a salary (say, the same as senior civil servant).
Their houses and estates would become public property (maybe they could keep a small one).
I'm not aware of any such survey, but you'd find it would vary a lot by location - in the south of England, you'd get more ...[text shortened]... much to say about social cohesion etc. though. http://www.mori.com/polls/1998/demos98.shtml[/b]
I think they should be there for unity purposes
and the usefulness they may have as tourist
attractions.
18 Sep 06
Originally posted by SeitseOK. As I said, my ideal solution would be to completely abolish them, but I realise that there are more important things to deal with.
Fair proposal.
I think they should be there for unity purposes
and the usefulness they may have as tourist
attractions.
I don't agree they provide any sort of unity - indeed sometimes they are very divisive, such as in the north of Ireland.
18 Sep 06
Originally posted by RedmikeNot taking into account Ireland and Scotland I forgot
OK. As I said, my ideal solution would be to completely abolish them, but I realise that there are more important things to deal with.
I don't agree they provide any sort of unity - indeed sometimes they are very divisive, such as in the north of Ireland.
to say, of course, since monarchic England has acted as
a colonialist monarchy, obviously, and such offends the
invaded.
Perhaps I should have had started by narrowing my assertion
to [i]symbol of unity for the English[i].
18 Sep 06
Originally posted by SeitseOK - I can't speak for the English, and wouldn't want to.
Not taking into account Ireland and Scotland I forgot
to say, of course, since monarchic England has acted as
a colonialist monarchy, obviously, and such offends the
invaded.
Perhaps I should have had started by narrowing my assertion
to [i]symbol of unity for the English[i].
18 Sep 06
I don't agree they provide any sort of unity - indeed sometimes they are very divisive, such as in the north of Ireland.[/b]Why do you think they are divisive?
also how come you scots dont want to be part of the union any more?
in response to one of the earliest questions (i went to bed shortly after i posted this thread), i read in the newspaper a few months ago that an author had done a study about the monarchy and their net profit for the UK was around £40m. unfortunately i dont have any references.
18 Sep 06
Originally posted by davidtravellingThe most obvious example of them being divisive is where one 'side' in the north of Ireland uses them as a symbol of britishness.
Why do you think they are divisive?
also how come you scots dont want to be part of the union any more?
in response to one of the earliest questions (i went to bed shortly after i posted this thread), i read in the newspaper a few months ago that an author had done a study about the monarchy and their net profit for the UK was around £40m. unfortunately i dont have any references.
Only some of us don't want to be part of the union - we'll see exactly how many at the elections in May 2007.
I think this idea that the royals generate more income than they cost is dubious. It assumes that a large part of the UK's tourist income would cease if the royals weren't around, but I think most would still come to see the houses, castles etc.
18 Sep 06
You cant blame them for whats happening in northern ireland, there would still be problems even if there was no monarchy, they are just a convenient pretext.
I think that people would still come and visit but it would lose some of its allure, you only have to read the posts that Americans have made on this subject to realise how appealing it is to our transatlantic cousins and therefore their tourist dollars. Also its important to keep our heritage alive and not just stuck in stone as that means things change and remain fresh for tourists (i.e. trooping the colour, changing the guard - if we just have the palaces and houses then we will lose all of that).
18 Sep 06
Originally posted by RedmikeAnd most of us in England will welcome your departure. Trouble is that most oi your compatriots know on which side their bread is buttered and are quite happy to remain the recipents of English bounty. How are you going to persuade them to defect?
[b]
Only some of us don't want to be part of the union.
18 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by davidtravellingI'm not blaming the monarchy for what is happening in the north of Ireland. I'm just giving an example of where the monarchy is a divisive issue.
You cant blame them for whats happening in northern ireland, there would still be problems even if there was no monarchy, they are just a convenient pretext.
I think that people would still come and visit but it would lose some of its allure, you only have to read the posts that Americans have made on this subject to realise how appealing it is t ...[text shortened]... our, changing the guard - if we just have the palaces and houses then we will lose all of that).
I guess we'll never know until they're gone exactly how many tourists come to the UK to see the actual royal people. I think we can happily keep the castles etc, but as I said earlier, I'd settle for a monarch without the constitutional powers and the money going round posing for tourists.
I'd don't think we should just 'keep our heritage' for its own sake. Society progresses, and things change. We used to have witch-burnings and rickets as part of our heritage.
18 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by chrissybBut what makes you believe tradition, ceremony and history aren't equally viable in a republic? You can change the guard at Buckingham Palace for all eternity - you don't necessarily require a bedizened queen to be sitting inside it.
I agree with some of the comments here. keep the tradition and pomp and ceremony that is steeped in history. my personal opinion, i think that is what keeps UK different from other western countries.
18 Sep 06
Originally posted by davidtravellingThe SNP was founded in 1934, and has had continuous parliamentary representation since 1967. Currently in the Scottish Parliament we have 25 MSPs.
Why do you think they are divisive?
also how come you scots dont want to be part of the union any more?
in response to one of the earliest questions (i went to bed shortly after i posted this thread), i read in the newspaper a few months ago that an author had done a study about the monarchy and their net profit for the UK was around £40m. unfortunately i dont have any references.
18 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeYou cant speak for the Scottish either, just your own opinion, and your party line if you wish, but you do not speak for me.
OK - I can't speak for the English, and wouldn't want to.
Like i said in my reply to the original post, i am quite proud of our queen. In a commonwealth, there is no reason that Independence should change that.
18 Sep 06
Originally posted by AmaurotePut her in Ministry of Sound for a night instead.
But what makes you believe tradition, ceremony and history aren't equally viable in a republic? You can change the guard at Buckingham Palace for all eternity - you don't necessarily require a bedizened queen to be sitting inside it.