Should the monarchy be abolished? [08/05/2011]

Should the monarchy be abolished?

ENDS: 08/05/2011

With the Royal Wedding just around the corner this really is the perfect debate! Basically, for those who basically don't know Britain is a constitutional monarchy, which basically puts the monarchy as a symbol and the country is run by a separate government. Although, the Queen still needs to approve major changes such as prime ministership changes etc.

To summarize the cons: The monarchy can be viewed as undemocratic- why should someone who was not elected by the people hold power? There's also the concept of it being inegalitarian, so basically if you are born into a royal family you are set for life and don't have to work up the social ladder. Also, why should we (the tax payer) pay for the monarchy, the costs are simply unjustifiable simply for them to live a lavish lifestyle. The days of divine rule are over and they are now more the subject of public embarrassment.

Then to the pros: Monarchs are often a symbolic rule for national unity. For example, in Thailand when the king tells protesters to stop, they stop. Monarchs are a national heritage, not many countries are left with a monarch and we cannot destroy so much history and culture, for it's like destroying the culture of the whole country. The monarchy is cost-effective, much more than the prime minister etc. because of all the tourism revenue it generates. Monarchs can change public opinion and bring up controversial issues that politicians ignore.

So, as you can see it's pretty evened out! Feel free to discuss but stick to the debate forum rules.

Nope .

Edited by Infectious (Forum Moderator): Please do not make pointless posts, please refer to the debate forum rules for more info!

I can see both sides of the argument, but I don't think it should change. If we didn't have the monarchy, it'd be President Blair or something which is obviously worse. I think the amount spent on them is a bit extreme, I'd like to see them getting on an economy flight, but then there's the security risks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caution

I can see both sides of the argument, but I don't think it should change. If we didn't have the monarchy, it'd be President Blair or something which is obviously worse. I think the amount spent on them is a bit extreme, I'd like to see them getting on an economy flight, but then there's the security risks.

---

The amount of money the treasury gets from the royal estates far exceeds the amount spent on them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Technologic

The amount of money the treasury gets from the royal estates far exceeds the amount spent on them

---

Yeah but I think what he's saying is that they still get a lot spent on them which could probably be cut easily, and I hope some of it has been cut. They should stay as their image produces a lot of money in various ways (tourism, merchandise) but we should stop spending so much on them, well the lesser known of the family as tbh they don't really need security unless at a major event of some kind. Also they are probably one of the most iconic things in britain, and as obviously shown with the wedding they are highly liked around the world. Well not necessarily liked, but known. Finally, they do a lot for charity too and it's not like they're on their asses all day, with harry doing RAF stuff (and I think wills done some too before). Obviously the queen probably is on her ass a lot but shes old and I'm actually surprised she's able to do whatever she does...

I do think we should be noted on stuff they actually do though because apart from a few things I have no idea.

It shouldn't. Even if the Monarchy cost more to keep than they rake in, I'd much rather live in a country with a common face representing the values and morals of the populace than a country who is ruled by a single person for about 4 years, who no-one would particularly care about after they are gone because they do so very little. The Monarchy tend to get out there and bond with the nation, while politicians these days just like to pretend they know what they're doing and act as though they are bonding. There's so very little care or attention when you see a politician talking to a citizen, while with the Queen tends to bond and talk to her citizens, and get involved. The Princes do quite a few things too, particularly when they were in Africa a few years ago. Heck, last week we saw one of the bonuses of a Royal Family and that was the Commonwealth and the World bonding with the United Kingdom to watch the Royal Wedding. You wouldn't get that in any other country, other than for bad news like 9/11 :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbgtz

I do think we should be noted on stuff they actually do though because apart from a few things I have no idea.

---

I think they have a website which tells you what they are doing. Although, I think they're not too public for security and personal reasons. By this, I mean if the Queen was visiting a place in your village, town or county, would you want it publically announced so people who have nothing to do with the area took over the event? The Facebook page used to hold some information and what they were doing. Last time I checked it had Charles going to some public gardens and doing something with the Prince's Trust.

You can find out what the Royal Family does by going here: http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRo.../Overview.aspx
Just select a family member from the column on the left, then click "A day in the life of..." - quite an interesting read.

The Royal Family costs something miniscule like 66p a year (per person, obviously) to keep running. It's a small price to pay for the masses of benefits they provide the country. GommeInc hit the nail on the head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathew

You can find out what the Royal Family does by going here: http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRo.../Overview.aspx
Just select a family member from the column on the left, then click "A day in the life of..." - quite an interesting read.

---

The only downsides are that it is a bit of a mess and you do not get too much information on where they have been and who they have visited. The Facebook page is pretty good for an easy to read format, but at the moment it's a right mess of Royal Wedding information :P

I genuinely see nobody but possibly the government in power who could benefit from abolishing the monarchy... It's doubtful they would remove the tax which pays for their lifestyle, rather just keep it to themselves and claim that they need it for funding or such.

Not if the King is just and peaceful. Like in Bhutan .. I guess?

---------- Post added 12-05-2011 at 04:46 PM ----------

Oh didnt know we were talking about Britain :P

I personally don't think it should be abolished, not in this country anyway. I think a Queen/King is a good representative for a country. As long as their power is not abused, like I believe they don't in this country. I'm all for it here in England.

However, I live virtually right on where the Battle Of Bosworth really took place. This is the place to be viewed by many historians as last 'true' English King died, as Richard III was killed in Battle by Henry the VII in 1485. Which marked the end of the Plantagenet kings of England. (There is a lot of evidence to show that Edward IV was illegitimate). So this would mean that the Queen herself today is illegitimate. I wondered if this bothered any of you? It certainly doesn't bother me, as I realise the first Plantagenet King was Henry II who was French born anyway..

we gain far too much from the royal family to abolish them! Tourism alone generates most of the profit in London, we would be in more monetary trouble without that. I rather like the royal family, they are far to embedded into the history of the country to get rid of them.

I wish this debate was about monarchies in general rather than just in Britain. It excludes people not from the UK. As i know very well, whenever the monarchy is brought up a lot of people on here get very defensive and don't even like questions being asked by "outsiders" :P .

Yes they should.

Edited by sct (Assistant Forum Manager): Please do not make pointless posts that do not contribute to the debate!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eoin247

I wish this debate was about monarchies in general rather than just in Britain. It excludes people not from the UK. As i know very well, whenever the monarchy is brought up a lot of people on here get very defensive and don't even like questions being asked by "outsiders" :P .

---

You could suggest another debate on Monarchy in general :P Naturally the British will think of their Royal Family when Monarchy is mentioned. A debate would be good, as the British Royal Family is unique in a few ways compared to many other types of Royal Family, particularly Middle-Eastern Royal Families.

I don't know much about foreign royal families though? Hence why I based my comment on the British Monarchy. I'm sure GommeInc knows about foreign monarchies, he seems to know everything. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zak

I don't know much about foreign royal families though? Hence why I based my comment on the British Monarchy. I'm sure GommeInc knows about foreign monarchies, he seems to know everything. :P

---

I know they exist? It's usually a start :P Many seem to own businesses outside of their own countries and are only royal by name but not necessarily by nature. I /think/ Harrods was bought by a member of a Middle-Eastern Royal Family.

I think Grig specified the UK in this case ;) . However can i ask one question? I have been told numerous times that it brings in much tourism. Yet it was never specified as to why it does when people told me. Surely most tourism related to the royals involves visiting the royal buildings? They'd still exist without a monarchy i'm guessing. I mean look at how many visitors the shas palace still gets. Only now, since he's gone, it's more open to public tourism.

Speaking of the Sha though ( not entirely sure of the spelling here ;) ), not many liked him in his area as he was considered to be installed by the west.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eoin247

I think Grig specified the UK in this case ;) . However can i ask one question? I have been told numerous times that it brings in much tourism. Yet it was never specified as to why it does when people told me. Surely most tourism related to the royals involves visiting the royal buildings? They'd still exist without a monarchy i'm guessing. I mean look at how many visitors the shas palace still gets. Only now, since he's gone, it's more open to public tourism.

Speaking of the Sha though ( not entirely sure of the spelling here ;) ), not many liked him in his area as he was considered to be installed by the west.

---

I think it's the simple fact of "There's Buckingham Palace, that's where the queen lives!". Rather than it just being another building.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eoin247

I think Grig specified the UK in this case ;) . However can i ask one question? I have been told numerous times that it brings in much tourism. Yet it was never specified as to why it does when people told me. Surely most tourism related to the royals involves visiting the royal buildings? They'd still exist without a monarchy i'm guessing. I mean look at how many visitors the shas palace still gets. Only now, since he's gone, it's more open to public tourism.

Speaking of the Sha though ( not entirely sure of the spelling here ;) ), not many liked him in his area as he was considered to be installed by the west.

---

Isn't that looking at boring architecture? I went to Venice in the Autumn and liked the Doge Palace, but I also liked the building next door which had nothing to do with Government. So your argument falls a bit flat. A buildings architecture remains after a Monarchy, but what brings Tourism to the UK is the fact that many buildings owned and managed by the Royal Family are still in use and are given some value by this. Afterall, they are sat in the middle of a huge city (London) so they're naturally on the stop of many tours.

The Sha Palace doesn't get as much Tourism. The British Royal is often looked at when the words of "Royal Family" or "Monarchy" are mentioned. There's an air of regality knowing that the British still have a Royal family that are involved in a lot of public service, without them we'd be boring like the French who have the same old Presidential infrastructure as Germany, US etc. Royal Families just seem more interesting :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zak

I think it's the simple fact of "There's Buckingham Palace, that's where the queen lives!". Rather than it just being another building.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Isn't that looking at boring architecture? I went to Venice in the Autumn and liked the Doge Palace, but I also liked the building next door which had nothing to do with Government. So your argument falls a bit flat. A buildings architecture remains after a Monarchy, but what brings Tourism to the UK is the fact that many buildings owned and managed by the Royal Family are still in use and are given some value by this. Afterall, they are sat in the middle of a huge city (London) so they're naturally on the stop of many tours.

The Sha Palace doesn't get as much Tourism. The British Royal is often looked at when the words of "Royal Family" or "Monarchy" are mentioned. There's an air of regality knowing that the British still have a Royal family that are involved in a lot of public service, without them we'd be boring like the French who have the same old Presidential infrastructure as Germany, US etc. Royal Families just seem more interesting :P

---

The most visited things in the world are visited for history rather than for present day happenings. Zak is saying that it would just be another building, but really, unless history is erased it's hardly just going to be another building? The architecture, decor, furniture, history and upkeep of it will all still be there. I visited Beethovens house when i went on an orchestra trip earlier this year ;) . They told us it is the most visited thing in the city, yet beethoven as we all know isn't alive. Also consider the palaces in France, the huge unused ones in Spain, and all the rest of the royal buildings that are in countries no longer with royals and the tourism they get. The Shas palace doesn't get as much tourism because of where it's located rather than what it is.

I don't really agree with the tourism argument as it's been put to me, but i do believe she does a lot of good for you as a figurehead for your country. This is a relatively new view for me, but i'll explain why. After looking into the queens visit to Ireland, i have to say i was impressed. Looking at her itinary for the week and then looking at her age, i really have to applaud her on what must be a very exhausting week.

Some of you may not realise the significance of what she did so far. But visiting the garden of rememberance and laying a wreath is hugely significant symbol considering who the garden is for. Also she visited croke park just now. Again hugely significant and the amount of interest and energy she seems to be giving the trip is really changing a lot of peoples mind about the queen in Ireland.

I'm still not too sure on the timing of the visit. But if anybody has any doubt about the significance of it then consider this,

I'm guessing most of you know about Gerry Adams? Well a few months back was totally against the visit and called the queen only by "Elizabeth" or "Elizabeth Windsor". Now however he says the visit is a good thing and believe it or not, he called her "Majesty".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eoin247

The most visited things in the world are visited for history rather than for present day happenings. Zak is saying that it would just be another building, but really, unless history is erased it's hardly just going to be another building? The architecture, decor, furniture, history and upkeep of it will all still be there. I visited Beethovens house when i went on an orchestra trip earlier this year ;) . They told us it is the most visited thing in the city, yet beethoven as we all know isn't alive. Also consider the palaces in France, the huge unused ones in Spain, and all the rest of the royal buildings that are in countries no longer with royals and the tourism they get. The Shas palace doesn't get as much tourism because of where it's located rather than what it is.

I don't really agree with the tourism argument as it's been put to me, but i do believe she does a lot of good for you as a figurehead for your country. This is a relatively new view for me, but i'll explain why. After looking into the queens visit to Ireland, i have to say i was impressed. Looking at her itinary for the week and then looking at her age, i really have to applaud her on what must be a very exhausting week.

Some of you may not realise the significance of what she did so far. But visiting the garden of rememberance and laying a wreath is hugely significant symbol considering who the garden is for. Also she visited croke park just now. Again hugely significant and the amount of interest and energy she seems to be giving the trip is really changing a lot of peoples mind about the queen in Ireland.

I'm still not too sure on the timing of the visit. But if anybody has any doubt about the significance of it then consider this,

I'm guessing most of you know about Gerry Adams? Well a few months back was totally against the visit and called the queen only by "Elizabeth" or "Elizabeth Windsor". Now however he says the visit is a good thing and believe it or not, he called her "Majesty".

---

I'm fairly confused by your argument as you seem to focus too much on history with no further uses rather than history in the making. Can we not have someone use the buildings then? People like visiting them and the buildings they own. Of course the history will be there IF they left, but the fact they're alive and do a lot of work for the country is an added bonus. It adds an extra charm to the buildings. The Doge Palace in Venice was a particularly interesting building, and would still be interesting if Venice was still a Republic and the power wasn't shifted to Rome and Italy. History and architecture are seperate to the ongoing work the inhabitants do :P Zak's argument did fall short off the mark, as he claims that the buildings would no longer be visited, when really the buildings and the uses are seperate entities.

It was interesting to see how Ireland took to the visit, but I guess that's a discussion for another thread :P It's strange one hasn't really been made, or taken off :/

I do not think that the English Monarchy should be ended because as far as i know it is not in an economical down turn, and once again as far as i know it's government is not hated, so i think it is just fine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Zak's argument did fall short off the mark, as he claims that the buildings would no longer be visited, when really the buildings and the uses are seperate entities.

---

No no! What I was trying to say was I don't think there would be as much interest in the buildings if the royal family wasn't involved. Then again people would still visit the building itself for the architecture, wonderful decor & items. I suppose it's like when people visit a stately home, they don't care who lived there, they just go because they like the building, landscape, setting etc etc.

Then again even for some homes this won't be the case. My parents went to Blenheim Palace a couple of years ago just because it was the birthplace of Winston Churchill. ;/ so yeah.... confused!

The Monarchy's great unites like 86? countries together. As long as they don't rule in tyranny, that is. Not like Elizabeth does anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by :.JessLiu.:

The Monarchy's great unites like 86? countries together. As long as they don't rule in tyranny, that is. Not like Elizabeth does anyway.

---

If i remember correctly there are about 15 or so countries that consider her their queen right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eoin247

If i remember correctly there are about 15 or so countries that consider her their queen right?

---

Interestingly countries she's not the Queen of like the Royal Family quite a lot too. America and a few European countries loved the Wedding, and enjoy the whole monarchy vibe :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Interestingly countries she's not the Queen of like the Royal Family quite a lot too. America and a few European countries loved the Wedding, and enjoy the whole monarchy vibe :P

---

My friend John in Canada was more stoaked about it all than I was. He was like DID YOU WATCH IT? I was like what? he was like THE ROYAL WEDDING! Glad it happened though, it gave us an amusing South Park episode. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syphon

I genuinely see nobody but possibly the government in power who could benefit from abolishing the monarchy... It's doubtful they would remove the tax which pays for their lifestyle, rather just keep it to themselves and claim that they need it for funding or such.

---

The monarchy piss our money into the wind.

Monarchy should be abolished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eoin247

I'm guessing most of you know about Gerry Adams? Well a few months back was totally against the visit and called the queen only by "Elizabeth" or "Elizabeth Windsor". Now however he says the visit is a good thing and believe it or not, he called her "Majesty".

---

I very much doubt most people care what Gerry Adams thinks or wants, he is the definition of total scum.

The debate over tourism, of course it brings tourism and also adds to the profile of the United Kingdom overseas - its mostly common knowledge that not that long ago, that little island nation off the coast of Europe with its Kings and Queens ruled the waves and vast swathes of land all around the world. The present day monarchy relates to this, its living evolving history as opposed to a disliked President who leaves office after five years.

The benefits of monarchy over a Republic are enormous aswell, it helps prevent a coup taking place as with what happens in many Republics, or for the simple example of France who are now on their Fifth Republic after abolishing their monarchy - monarchy brings stability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I very much doubt most people care what Gerry Adams thinks or wants, he is the definition of total scum.

---

Are you really saying that his change of stance has no significance? Or are you just stating that you don't like him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eoin247

Are you really saying that his change of stance has no significance? Or are you just stating that you don't like him?

---

Pretty much both, his involvement with the IRA is enough to land him a prison cell for life - not to mention his involvement in Bloody Friday. The fact that this man has a hand in HM government (despite not winning the election to form an administration) makes me sick to the stomach and I can't care much for what he says or does because if there is true justice served in the afterlife, Gerry Adams and his cult are going straight to hell.

It is just a pity that generations of British mainstream politicians are so weak and frankly pathetic that it has led to this stage.