18 Jan 08
I say keep them. Without them England wouldn't have the world wide recognition we have now. They are also excellent for diplomatic relations, smoothing things over for the government in areas which are politically dodgy. A visit by the Queen does no end of good for public relations!
18 Jan 08
Originally posted by st00p1dfac3Rather than put it to a vote, I'd prefer to gather an army, storm the palace, and lop off the pretenders' heads.
I have had a bit of a debate with my girlfriend, and I feel it is only proper to settle it by circumventing media propaganda, and asking you, the people of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland -
If you were required to vote either for, or against the monarchy (obviously won't happen) would you vote for the royal family to continue in their c ...[text shortened]... not familiar with the United Kingdom's actual views on this particular question.
Thanks...
18 Jan 08
Interesting... It seems the majority would choose to keep the royals where they are. I would have thought it would be the other way around. Since they are not elected, and don't necessarily have any qualifications to be the head(s) of state except their genetic material. Where does their money come from? Is some of your tax keeping them rich or what?
Ah well. I lose that discussion...
18 Jan 08
They make more money for the U.K through tourism than we could possible pay them in tax. Plus they make money through their own methods, like duchys originals, a brand owned by dear old Charlie. And don't kid yourself into thinking that their qualifications are simply genetic. Don't forget, the Queen has almost weekly meetings with the PM, and receives classified documents and papers regarding the running of government departments not just from the U.K but also from other parts of the commonwealth on a daily basis. Plus she's been doing this for 50 odd years, longer than any of the politicians in any government on the planet (just about).
18 Jan 08
Originally posted by FeastboyI think those tourism figures are highly dubious. Tourists come for the history, and the history is still there.
They make more money for the U.K through tourism than we could possible pay them in tax. Plus they make money through their own methods, like duchys originals, a brand owned by dear old Charlie. And don't kid yourself into thinking that their qualifications are simply genetic. Don't forget, the Queen has almost weekly meetings with the PM, and receives c ...[text shortened]... 0 odd years, longer than any of the politicians in any government on the planet (just about).
The Queen might be good at her role. But if she is, it's entirely coincidental. She could be rubbish at it - she'd still be Queen. Charles gets to be King regardless of how good or how popular he'd be.
For me, though, all this is irrelevant. How can they justify having power just because of who their parents were? They can't - which is why I can't support anything they stand for.
18 Jan 08
Originally posted by FeastboyThis point has already been made, but I thought I'd clarify what I wrote before - when the monarch comes into power, they do so because they are the next genetic monarch. They do not have to prove any ability, knowledge, or strength. In addition - no tourist ever meets the royals, so your tourism nonsense falls apart right there. You seem to be assigning value to knowledge after the fact when discussing the reasons why a monarch is a monarch to begin with. Elizabeth knew nothing before she was monarch, and just because she was told things after she became monarch doesn't mean she was qualified beforehand.
They make more money for the U.K through tourism than we could possible pay them in tax. Plus they make money through their own methods, like duchys originals, a brand owned by dear old Charlie. And don't kid yourself into thinking that their qualifications are simply genetic. Don't forget, the Queen has almost weekly meetings with the PM, and receives c ...[text shortened]... 0 odd years, longer than any of the politicians in any government on the planet (just about).
To clarify further - The discussion that my girlfriend and I were having stemmed from something we saw on television regarding princess Di and an allegation that she had said that Charles should never be monarch and that the crown should skip a generation and go on to William.
I happened to say something close to "what a stupid *honking* argument, neither of them have any reason to be ruler of country just because of their seed and egg donors." My girlfriend decided that my views were less than well thought out, and challenged me.
I argued that royal succession has to follow the order of heirs, and you can't just decide to skip past someone because he has big ears. I also argued that since I've seen his views about how he truly believes that he is the crown prince because god put him there, and how regular people have been relegated to their stations in life because they aren't good enough to be royal, that Charles is kind of an ass, and not someone that I would ever want as my figurehead or leader.
Then, we got in a big fight and I decided to ask those who know - the UK public. I claimed that the citizenship of the United Kingdom would gladly remove the royals from their system of government, since the majority of decisions should be made by the majority, not some self-styled leader who has been bred to believe she/he has a god given right to absolute power. She claimed they loved the monarchy and would vote to keep them. Which is apparently true. I don't get it, but I was wrong.
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by st00p1dfac3You've got to remember that their power is really only ceremonial now. If they tried to exercise any of their theoretical powers by not signing an act of parliament etc. they'd soon be turfed out.
This point has already been made, but I thought I'd clarify what I wrote before - when the monarch comes into power, they do so because they are the next genetic monarch. They do not have to prove any ability, knowledge, or strength. In addition - no tourist ever meets the royals, so your tourism nonsense falls apart right there. You seem to be assign ...[text shortened]... nd would vote to keep them. Which is apparently true. I don't get it, but I was wrong.
For some reason I've started to like all the tradition and stuff, although I'd be happy to take some of their, and the rest of the aristocracy's land back for us peasants.
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by st00p1dfac3This point is moot. People DO come to the UK because of our royal heritage. Becoming a republic would remove that.
In addition - no tourist ever meets the royals, so your tourism nonsense falls apart right there.
The royals are largely harmless enough - they have no real power, yet represent something very British, something about who we are and where we came from. Even if you don't like the individuals, the institution is very old, and still pervades many institutions (Royal Society, for example).
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by st00p1dfac3Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound as if her abilitys helped her qualify to become queen (if that makes sense). Obviously, she would have automatically become queen, whether she had any abilities or not.
This point has already been made, but I thought I'd clarify what I wrote before - when the monarch comes into power, they do so because they are the next genetic monarch. They do not have to prove any ability, knowledge, or strength. In addition - no tourist ever meets the royals, so your tourism nonsense falls apart right there. You seem to be assign ...[text shortened]... ecause she was told things after she became monarch doesn't mean she was qualified beforehand.
I wouldn't say she knew nothing before she became monarch though, if you're brought up with all the politics and stuff going on around you you're bound to pick some up. Think of it as taking over a family trade.
19 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by st00p1dfac3Perhaps you should remind your girlfriend of Charles' economic genius. Obviously she has forgotten his ideas, in years past, to sort a depressed economy with the instruction to the peasants: "extract your digits."
To clarify further - The discussion that my girlfriend and I were having stemmed from something we saw on television regarding princess Di and an allegation that she had said that Charles should never be monarch and that the crown should skip a generation and go on to William.
I happened to say something close to "what a stupid *honking* argument, nei ...[text shortened]... s." My girlfriend decided that my views were less than well thought out, and challenged me.
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by st00p1dfac3I've heard a few people say this sort of thing, and it always irritates me. The whole point of a hereditary monarchy is that fitness to rule is irrelevant, and us plebs don't get a choice. If you want a choice, you want something other than a monarchy. After all, if you're chosing who would be best, why limit yourself to one family?
To clarify further - The discussion that my girlfriend and I were having stemmed from something we saw on television regarding princess Di and an allegation that she had said that Charles should never be monarch and that the crown should skip a generation and go on to William.
You can support the monarchy fully, which is fine. You can argue for abolition, which is also fine. But anyone who supports it, yet thinks Charles should miss it, isn't being consistent in my opinion.
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by st00p1dfac3I also don't get the point of the monarchy
I have had a bit of a debate with my girlfriend, and I feel it is only proper to settle it by circumventing media propaganda, and asking you, the people of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland -
If you were required to vote either for, or against the monarchy (obviously won't happen) would you vote for the royal family to continue in their c ...[text shortened]... not familiar with the United Kingdom's actual views on this particular question.
Thanks...
Many monarchists argue that the monarchy helps with the tourism, but is it really true?
If you look at France, for example, you realise that they haven't got a monarchy anymore, but the tourism there is still very good.
19 Jan 08
Originally posted by FeastboyAnd she can fire the Prime Minister of Canada. Right?
They make more money for the U.K through tourism than we could possible pay them in tax. Plus they make money through their own methods, like duchys originals, a brand owned by dear old Charlie. And don't kid yourself into thinking that their qualifications are simply genetic. Don't forget, the Queen has almost weekly meetings with the PM, and receives c ...[text shortened]... 0 odd years, longer than any of the politicians in any government on the planet (just about).