Should we get rid of the monarchy?

The unelected head of state (The Queen) lives in a palace while the public work hard whilst paying taxes to keep this scheme running.

This system also gives politicians almost limitless power, here are a few examples:

• “The royal prerogative: Former royal powers that allow the Prime Minister to declare war or sign treaties (amongst other things) without a vote in Parliament
• The Privy Council: A body of advisors to the monarch, now mostly made up of senior politicians, which can enact legislation without a vote in Parliament
• The Crown-in-Parliament: The principle, which came about when parliament removed much of the monarch's power, by which Parliament can pass any law it likes - meaning our liberties can never be guaranteed. “

I think we should abolish the monarchy system andreplace the queen with a directly elected, ceremonial head of state.

Source : http://www.republic.org.uk

No, simply because of the huge history.

Tourists come from all over the world to see the Palace, and are obsessed with the monarch. Removing that would be silly imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

No, simply because of the huge history.

Tourists come from all over the world to see the Palace, and are obsessed with the monarch. Removing that would be silly imo.

---

With you, especially as these days the monarchy is much for in-touch with normal Britons. Take Harry and his work in the army, and William as a search and rescue pilot.

Plus with the money they bring to UK through tourism and image, I think they're a fantastic and unique monarchy to have.

We already have a President, his name is Herman Van Rompuy with his unelected deputy Jose Barroso. These two, unlike the Queen and the Monarchy, make the bulk of our laws, are foreign (therefore do not have our interests at heart) and are unelected. If you wish to work towards a constitutional system which is wholely elected, the Monarchy isn't a big part of this - the European Union is. Why is it I wonder, that many in Republic direct so much effort towards abolishing our excellent consitutional system on the basis of it being 'unelected' whilst at the same time we hear not a peep from them on the issue of the European Union. Most likely because those in Republic fully support our membership and have no problem with this project exactly because it is anti-British, unlike the Monarchy.

On the issue of the Monarchy itself, our constitutional system has evolved over many hundreds of years to have the perfect balance we have now - why should we want to tinker with it and destablise this unique system? we have a non-political Head of State who works enormously hard, has great influence and respect around the world and embodies the United Kingdom. As for the Privy Council, it is a null point - it is a largely ineffective body which does very little anymore, if anything at all and is therefore a void point.

After all, would you want the likes of 'Tone' and Cherie lording over us at Buckingham Palace? pass me the sick bucket.

Hasn't this debate been done already.

One worded answer would be no. I'd rather a Queen than someone who runs a country for about 3 or 5 years, dies, and no one cares about. At least the monarchy reign for most of their life time and in that time learn what the citizens want, and the people of said nation can have a familiar face to look up to. Besides, the Royal family and the monarchy do more than the public servants we waste time and energy in voting in, which barely relate to their electorate and just sit in offices all day pretending to care about what their constituents want. The Royal Family are more British than the toffs who do not know what a real Britain is. Let's see some MPs fight a real war, play real sports and actually have "real" lives outside of their tiny little worlds ;)

/mumbled rant which should probably be edited but I don't have much time this evening :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

We already have aPresident, his name is Herman Van Rompuy with his unelected deputy JoseBarroso. These two, unlike the Queen and the Monarchy, make the bulk of ourlaws, are foreign (therefore do not have our interests at heart) and areunelected.

---

And if it were my choice we’d be straight out of the EUalso?

Quote:

---

If you wish to work towards a constitutional system whichis wholely elected, the Monarchy isn't a big part of this - the European Unionis.

---

One step at a time. We need to scrap the Monarchy andleave the EU but obviously neither are easy task.

Quote:

---

Why is it I wonder, that many in Republic direct so mucheffort towards abolishing our excellent consitutional system on the basis of itbeing 'unelected'

---

Quote:

---

Most likely because those in Republic fully support our membership and have no problem with this project exactly because it is anti-British,unlike the Monarchy.

---

The monarchs live in luxury, off the taxes of the workingclass. The queen lives in a palace while thousands live in council estates. How much of tax payers money was spent on the royal wedding? Or actually, how muchof the tax payers money is spent on maintaining this ridiculous scheme?

Quote:

---

On the issue of the Monarchy itself, our constitutional system has evolved overmany hundreds of years to have the perfect balance we have now

---

Quote:

---

---

How is it the perfect balance? The unelected royals living in luxury whilst majority of citizens have to work hard all their lifeto provide said royals with their possessions.

Quote:

---

why should we want to tinker with it and destablise thisunique system?

---

Change isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Quote:

---

we have a non-political Head of State who works enormously hard, has great influence and respect around the world and embodiesthe United Kingdom.

---

It would be better to have an elected head of state, one who knows what they’re doing and can actually have influence over decisions made.

I think you care too much about preserving tradition rather than advancing society. I think it’s disgusting that people are struggling to pay for their petrol because of crippling taxes to up keep this unelected group who have done nothing to earn their position and are merely born into it.

We should elect our leaders, not have them imposed on us.

no, as an american the monarchy gives me something to admire

This debate has been done before but I'll still post something about this.

Imo, the monarchy involves a long history whether it's at UK or Malaysia. So, getting rid of it is just quite silly as they are there for something. If it's not for tourism, it's for the country. The monarchy is almost what runs the country and I think it's a good thing. The whole family represents the country for its good identity. In my country, an elected monarch or we call him Yang di-Pertuan Agong is the head of state. And nothing is bad about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

And if it were my choice we’d be straight out of the EUalso?

One step at a time. We need to scrap the Monarchy andleave the EU but obviously neither are easy task.



The monarchs live in luxury, off the taxes of the workingclass. The queen lives in a palace while thousands live in council estates. How much of tax payers money was spent on the royal wedding? Or actually, how muchof the tax payers money is spent on maintaining this ridiculous scheme?
[COLOR=#222222][FONT=Verdana]
How is it the perfect balance? The unelected royals living in luxury whilst majority of citizens have to work hard all their lifeto provide said royals with their possessions.

Change isn’t necessarily a bad thing.


It would be better to have an elected head of state, one who knows what they’re doing and can actually have influence over decisions made.

I think you care too much about preserving tradition rather than advancing society. I think it’s disgusting that people are struggling to pay for their petrol because of crippling taxes to up keep this unelected group who have done nothing to earn their position and are merely born into it.

We should elect our leaders, not have them imposed on us.

---

I believe kate middletons parents also paid a large chunk of the wedding, as much as they could.

---

Also Dan, no one asked about the ******* EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

And if it were my choice we’d be straight out of the EUalso?

---

Fair play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

One step at a time. We need to scrap the Monarchy andleave the EU but obviously neither are easy task.

---

Why do we 'need' to scrap the Monarchy? what is this sudden 'need' to do change our constitution? a constitutional system I may add, that has kept us from violent revolutions in the past unlike other nations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

The monarchs live in luxury, off the taxes of the workingclass. The queen lives in a palace while thousands live in council estates. How much of tax payers money was spent on the royal wedding? Or actually, how muchof the tax payers money is spent on maintaining this ridiculous scheme?

---

So a President wouldn't live in a Palace? a President wouldn't have a high salary? a President wouldn't have various offical motorcades? a President wouldn't have taxpayers money spent on high profile do's? a President wouldn't live in luxury?

In turn, would a President care more about the stability of the country or his or her own political legacy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

How is it the perfect balance? The unelected royals living in luxury whilst majority of citizens have to work hard all their lifeto provide said royals with their possessions.

---

Because if you can't understand the benefits of having a non-political Monarch as Head of State as opposed to a political Head of State (a President) then I really despair. As for the possessions of the Royals, the great majority are gifts from both the public and foreign nations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Change isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

---

Where is the need to change a constitutional system which is quite possibly the best in the world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

It would be better to have an elected head of state, one who knows what they’re doing and can actually have influence over decisions made.

---

We do have this, just we have a Prime Minister who is elected and who carries out political duties and makes decisions. The Monarch is there for stability, to ever prevent an abuse of power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

I think you care too much about preserving tradition rather than advancing society. I think it’s disgusting that people are struggling to pay for their petrol because of crippling taxes to up keep this unelected group who have done nothing to earn their position and are merely born into it.

---

I do care about tradition because i've looked at the majority of nations around the world which killed off their tried and tested methods and they suffered greatly for it. I fail to also see the 'advance'? where is the advancement in replacing a tried and tested, 1,000+ year old system which has offered us stability like no other nation and replacing it?

As for taxation, the Monarchy is next-to-nothing and could even be self-funding if UKIP policy is ever adopted which would return the Monarchy to living from the fruits of their estates, rather than the present civil list (which was changed in the first place by Parliament). I would add however, what makes you think that a President wouldn't live from our taxes? how do you think the state gets its money? it is all taken via taxation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

We should elect our leaders, not have them imposed on us.

---

We should elect our political leaders, I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

Also Dan, no one asked about the ******* EU.

---

Then you obviously haven't examined what I said or why I said it, that nobody can seriously talk about the issue of the Monarchy being unelected (a Monarchy which has no political power or influence) whilst we are members of the European Union who make the majority of our laws, are foreign and are unelected.

Is that absolutely clear?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Why do we 'need' toscrap the Monarchy? what is this sudden 'need' to do change our constitution? aconstitutional system I may add, that has kept us from violent revolutions inthe past unlike other nations.

---

You could also argue the same for staying in the EU…

Quote:

---

So a President wouldn't live in a Palace? a Presidentwouldn't have a high salary? a President wouldn't have various officalmotorcades? a President wouldn't have taxpayers money spent on high profiledo's? a President wouldn't live in luxury?

---

A president would have EARNT their position rather than haveit through birth.

Quote:

---

Where is the need to change a constitutional system which isquite possibly the best in the world?

---

It would have the same effect except for the fact that thehead of state is elected…

Quote:

---

I do care about tradition because i've looked at themajority of nations around the world which killed off their tried and testedmethods and they suffered greatly for it. I fail to also see the 'advance'?where is the advancement in replacing a tried and tested, 1,000+ year oldsystem which has offered us stability like no other nation and replacing it?

---

I merely suggest we change the figurehead, a head of statewho is elected, that is all, everything else will stay the same.

Quote:

---

As for taxation, the Monarchy is next-to-nothing and couldeven be self-funding if UKIP policy is ever adopted which would return theMonarchy to living from the fruits of their estates, rather than the presentcivil list (which was changed in the first place by Parliament).

---

I thought you said there was no need to change the system asit’s “one of the best in the world”…

Quote:

---

I would add however, what makes you think that a Presidentwouldn't live from our taxes? how do you think the state gets its money? it isall taken via taxation.

---

I have no problem with an elected president living off ourtaxes. I have a problem with someone being born into it though.
You complain about the EU as it is run by unelected members,yet you suggest we keep an unelected head of state. Your posts scream hypocrite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

You could also argue the same for staying in the EU…

---

I have and can provide numerous reasons for leaving the European Union, I cannot however, nor can you from the looks of it, provide reasons why there is a need to remove the House of Windsor from the Throne and destabilise a 1,000-year old system which has evolved over centuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

A president would have EARNT their position rather than haveit through birth.

---

Earnt? by cosying upto television companies? by cuddling with newspaper owners? meeting with members of large corporations? the kind of cheap political rhetoric that propelled Mr. Blair and Mr. Cameron to office? Ask yourself, is this really a better alternative?

Who commands our respect as Head of State? HM Queen Elizabeth II or Anthony Blair?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

It would have the same effect except for the fact that thehead of state is elected.

---

...then you mis-understand our constitutional system. Our Head of State is non-political, is not influenced by ideology or current events - it is solid, it is always there and as I said earlier; it has kept this country from the kinds of violent revolutions other nations have had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

I merely suggest we change the figurehead, a head of statewho is elected, that is all, everything else will stay the same.

---

Not at all, once the position of Head of State becomes political it becomes unstable (see history).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

I thought you said there was no need to change the system asit’s “one of the best in the world”…

---

The constitutional system is for sure, the funding of the Monarchy perhaps not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

I have no problem with an elected president living off ourtaxes. I have a problem with someone being born into it though.

---

So taxation isn't really an issue to you, you just said it in order to bash the Monarchy when you propose to keep that very same status quo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

You complain about the EU as it is run by unelected members,yet you suggest we keep an unelected head of state. Your posts scream hypocrite.

---

Not at all, you have purposely ignored my points on this. Please see my various references on the European Union being unelected, political and foreign, whereas the Monarchy is non-political and native while unelected.

No.

I love the Queen and the guards with the fluffy hats.

I think the legacy our monarchy and stuff has left behind is too great for anyone really to say "off with their wigs!" and destroy what history has essentially created.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

*snips post*

---

You are of the opinion the monarchy run the country and make the decisions that are not in the interests of its people. This is entirely wrong, as Undertaker has mentioned countless times, the Monarchy doesn't get involved in politics, they only enact laws passed through the political system - a seal of approval, in a sense ;) The EU and the Monarchy are therefore entirely different - the EU attempts to run a large number of countries in the interests of its citizens (or as reality suggests, in the interests of itself - not the citizens of the member states), while the Monarchy do no such thing as they're politically neutral. So your thread is immediately flawed from the get-go. If your argument was "are they worth the taxes used to pay for them" then you would have an argument, but to suggest the Monarchy run the country is absurb and wrong, as they do not :P

Also, reflecting on your original post - without the Monarchy, Government would still have "limitless power", they could enact many laws if they were corrupt enough, and in some sense they are as they have created laws which no-one quite knows why. Thankfully, some laws like the Digital Economy Act which was pointlessly created and poorly written, are scrapped or re-written to be less stupid and economically crippling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

You are of the opinion the monarchy run the country and make the decisions that are not in the interests of its people. This is entirely wrong, as Undertaker has mentioned countless times, the Monarchy doesn't get involved in politics, they only enact laws passed through the political system - a seal of approval, in a sense ;) The EU and the Monarchy are therefore entirely different - the EU attempts to run a large number of countries in the interests of its citizens (or as reality suggests, in the interests of itself - not the citizens of the member states), while the Monarchy do no such thing as they're politically neutral. So your thread is immediately flawed from the get-go. If your argument was "are they worth the taxes used to pay for them" then you would have an argument, but to suggest the Monarchy run the country is absurb and wrong, as they do not :P

Also, reflecting on your original post - without the Monarchy, Government would still have "limitless power", they could enact many laws if they were corrupt enough, and in some sense they are as they have created laws which no-one quite knows why. Thankfully, some laws like the Digital Economy Act which was pointlessly created and poorly written, are scrapped or re-written to be less stupid and economically crippling.

---

Although they don't really have a say in the laws passed anyway - so they don't really even have to 100% approve haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

You are of the opinion the monarchy run the country and make the decisions that are not in the interests of its people. This is entirely wrong, as Undertaker has mentioned countless times, the Monarchy doesn't get involved in politics, they only enact laws passed through the political system - a seal of approval, in a sense ;) The EU and the Monarchy are therefore entirely different - the EU attempts to run a large number of countries in the interests of its citizens (or as reality suggests, in the interests of itself - not the citizens of the member states), while the Monarchy do no such thing as they're politically neutral. So your thread is immediately flawed from the get-go. If your argument was "are they worth the taxes used to pay for them" then you would have an argument, but to suggest the Monarchy run the country is absurb and wrong, as they do not :P

Also, reflecting on your original post - without the Monarchy, Government would still have "limitless power", they could enact many laws if they were corrupt enough, and in some sense they are as they have created laws which no-one quite knows why. Thankfully, some laws like the Digital Economy Act which was pointlessly created and poorly written, are scrapped or re-written to be less stupid and economically crippling.

---

I know the goverment don't run the country, I made the comparison with the EU as dan complained about them being unelected, I complained about the head of state (even if they have little political power) being unelected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

I know the goverment don't run the country, I made the comparison with the EU as dan complained about them being unelected, I complained about the head of state (even if they have little political power) being unelected.

---

They are two completely different things though :P One is publically funded and declares how much it is worth, while the EU hides its costs in a mysterious black hole. The EU are unelected, indeed, but to nitpick on what Dan says, when we both know what he means, is driving us away from the point.