what do you think about the monarchy?

[X]

personally, i am torn because on one hand i feel that it is an important tradition, something that has shaped our counrty and allowed us to evolve into what we are today. but then again, i wonder if it has held us back from becoming more or if it has kept us from evolving into something better for us.

but i like tradition, i like it because i think that it is something that allows us to have a window into the past. and even though some have said that the monarchy no longer serves a purpose authoritarily, don't you think that it still serves a purpose symbolicly. i mean, it's our heritage right?

but if tradition stops serving it's purpose, and the "system" has evolved and now requires something new, would you vote to end it? i don't know...

sometimes i think that maybe it would be a good thing because it migh allow for there to be a...i don't know, a new sense of "self" within England AND Scotland. i don't know...

i suppose one would have to delve deeper into the subject and have to define what the monarchy means to them and what they feel that it stands for today. which, leaves an air of subjectivism that i don't think will ever go away. i mean, have we been too, socialised to believe that if we were to be without it would be such a bad thing? where do our beliefs and faith in the monarchy come from? are outside influences making us question ourselves to the point that we would change it? what would we be without it? so many questions...

i am sorry if i am asking too much or going to far with asking this but it is something that i have been thinking about a lot lately and would like to have other people's opinions on. so please don't take this the wrong way or personally, it's just a question.

[Pilmour Boy]

Personally, I'm yet to be persuaded by the arguments for a republic. And, in much the same way as I view the House of Lords, why not keep it until we've got something better to replace it with?

[rr12]

What has everyone lost faith in divine right!

[Pilmour Boy]

What has everyone lost faith in divine right!

Divine Right?

You mean that a random person, who, by virtue of one of their parents having come top in a beauty contest, gets to have power of life or death over the rest of the nation?

And surely divine right falls down in a state with a non-homogenous population?


Come on, even the Catholic Church doesn't believe in inherited divine right.

[avogadro_number]

The monarchy rules. Quite literally.

[Anon.]

I think that in an age of general cultural homogenisation, any idiosyncrasies that make nations different from each other should be preserved.

[Morf]

ALthough the general question of monarchy is in principal wrong and outdated, my argument has always been the alternative: a president (mentioning no names such as George W ,Arnie, Maggie etc) is another politician, and who can trust one of those? Much to everyones claims, the monarchy does pay for itself - through increased trade (ie Queen goes on state visit and Bae gets huge deal days after)(people in the middle east love the monarchy), tourism and the crowns lands such as the duchy of lancaster whose wealth goes directly to the Chancellor, which in turns comes back as the Civil List. What the monarchy gives is consistency and huge theoretical powers should some evil dictator ever raise his head (Blair) and try to take over. It is also the basis of everything, and to change it would be a mammoth task, something to be done when it is really needed and thought through. Some elements of a new written constitution could be good - (here I become a bit idealistic) root out the class divide, a goal for equality, be more inclusive, a structured, modern and open parliament and good check and balance system to prevent power greedy control freaks, a structured legal system,.. But these are changes that come when a country is just been born (usa 1776, russia, germany, france) not when it is relatively stable - and stability brings with it a great deal of confidence. However, the monarchy has a hugely important role to play and they will be tested over the next few decades as it becomes a political football in australia, nz etc. I believe it could just be that constant ethical authority (try to be) that highlights Britain as a nation of passion, history and consistency. It is for this reason why we have been able to elevate ourselves politically abroad far more than our station deserves. In many ways - so many people want change for changes sake without coming up with a radical and new alternative that will be better. There is no going back if you do and certainly I believe that anyone who devises a new system will make a pigs ear of it (millennium dome, railtrack etc) So, yes, keep it, respect it and be proud of it.

[Guest]

I'm apathetic. I don't see what great things will be accomplished through abolition of the monarchy, and I don't see the great benefits to be derived from it being intact, either.

[Guest]

thank you Morf i liked what you said and i thought that it was very head on. in fact, at the end when you stated that if it were to change, there is no going back and besides, it is what has helped to maintain such strength for our country really hit the tail on the donkey. thank you for taking the time to respond as you did.

[Clonion]

[s]Morf wrote on 19:25, 3rd Dec 2003:
ALthough the general question of monarchy is in principal wrong and outdated, my argument has always been the alternative: a president (mentioning no names such as George W ,Arnie, Maggie etc) is another politician, and who can trust one of those?

Well, look at the system the Republic of Ireland has got - a Taoseach (Prime Minister) who with his Dail (Parliament) has the power, and the President who is the head of state and has no power, such as Mary Robinson who went on to become United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights. Our Presidents have done good jobs as Heads of State, without the internal politics.

[hr]
"If I want to quantify anything, I measure it against Clones. There is nothing you will ever encounter in life you haven't seen in some form in Clones"
Neil Jordan

[Pilmour Boy]

[s]Clonion wrote on 13:50, 4th Dec 2003:
[s]Morf wrote on 19:25, 3rd Dec 2003:[i]
ALthough the general question of monarchy is in principal wrong and outdated, my argument has always been the alternative: a president (mentioning no names such as George W ,Arnie, Maggie etc) is another politician, and who can trust one of those?

Well, look at the system the Republic of Ireland has got - a Taoseach (Prime Minister) who with his Dail (Parliament) has the power, and the President who is the head of state and has no power, such as Mary Robinson who went on to become United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights. Our Presidents have done good jobs as Heads of State, without the internal politics.
[/i]

But then there isn't even the theoretical power of the veto. Yet more power handed to the executive branch of the legislature is the last thing this country needs.

[Clonion]

[s]Pilmour Boy wrote on 14:09, 4th Dec 2003:
[s]Clonion wrote on 13:50, 4th Dec 2003:[i]
[s]Morf wrote on 19:25, 3rd Dec 2003:[i]
ALthough the general question of monarchy is in principal wrong and outdated, my argument has always been the alternative: a president (mentioning no names such as George W ,Arnie, Maggie etc) is another politician, and who can trust one of those?

Well, look at the system the Republic of Ireland has got - a Taoseach (Prime Minister) who with his Dail (Parliament) has the power, and the President who is the head of state and has no power, such as Mary Robinson who went on to become United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights. Our Presidents have done good jobs as Heads of State, without the internal politics.
[/i]

But then there isn't even the theoretical power of the veto. Yet more power handed to the executive branch of the legislature is the last thing this country needs.
[/i]

My point was that if people are uncomfortable with a monarchy, but do not wish to have a US-President-style Prime Minister, it is possible to have an elected Head of State with no constitutional power. I have to say I rather like it.

[hr]
"If I want to quantify anything, I measure it against Clones. There is nothing you will ever encounter in life you haven't seen in some form in Clones"
Neil Jordan

[Pilmour Boy]

The Germans have the same system, but I don't really think that it would be able to work in this country, as we lack a codified constitutional document.

Because of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the executive would be able to extend their powers without limit. At least with the requirement of Royal Assent there is the possibility of stopping them. And if the monarch decided not to assent to a bill, I have no doubt that the government would fall, as the Prime Minister could no longer carry out the functions requiring Royal Prerogative.

[Mr Comedy]

I say God bless the Queen, the royal family, and all the associated foibles that go with it. Where would we be on Christmas Day without the fine Queens speech? And, it is important to add, where would our extra policing come from? I wouldn't feel safe walking down South Street during the daytime, was it not for the presence of armed officers..

[Setsuna]

My mum is the most anti-royal family person you could ever meet, being the mad communist that she is.

The only benefit i see of the royal family when my dad makes us stand and salute during the queens speech and makes us sing the (english) national anthem...

My mum goes crazy, its absolutely hilarious



Other than that, no, i think they are useless. What do they do? Do they need hundreds of servants and huge properties and bundles of cash etc.etc.etc.etc.? granted, i dont know every detail, but with the amount of poverty in the UK and everywhere else in the world, that kind of decadance disgusts me.

Its also something you see in st andrews a lot. A lot of people here struggle, yet some of them are blowing £1000s every month to 'live'. I dont think im jealous... but its disgusting.

However, i spend most of my money on drink, it seems, so im just a big giant hypocrite.

Im not good at being opinionated. someone help!

[Anon.]

[s]Setsuna wrote on 19:01, 4th Dec 2003:
Other than that, no, i think they are useless. What do they do? Do they need hundreds of servants and huge properties and bundles of cash etc.etc.etc.etc.? granted, i dont know every detail, but with the amount of poverty in the UK and everywhere else in the world, that kind of decadance disgusts me.

Just glancing at the Court Circular (which is printed every day in The Times and The Daily Telegraph) shows that the Royal Family certainly do not spend all their time lounging about quaffing champagne. They have a full-time job, mostly ceremonial and connected with the numerous organisations, especially charities, of which they are Patrons etc. They also (surprisingly frequently) represent Britain abroad on Royal tours.

The Queen, of course, as Head of State, also has regular meetings with the Prime Minister, and I would imagine plays a substantial informal advisory rôle, given her enormous political experience over fifty years.

With regard to the Royals' wealth: as I think somebody mentioned, The Queen owns a substantial amount of private property in the form of the Duchy of Lancaster. However, by agreement, the income from this goes to the Government, and in return the Royal Family is given money through the Civil List (actually, I think, less than would be derived directly from the Duchy). I personally think that, as the family of the Sovereign, it is appropriate that they should be maintained in a pretty luxurious style, for reasons of British prestige. The situation in Scandinavia, where Royals ride about on bicycles and are generally pretty egalitarian, in my view lessens somewhat the dignity of their position as Head of State.

[Mr Comedy]

will's got a bike...

[CarolynSD]

This post has been deleted.

[Anon.]

By the way, 21st in line to the throne is Lady Rose Windsor, second daughter of HRH The Duke of Gloucester. She was born in 1980, and is not, so to speak, a "working Royal".

The only mugshots I can find online seem to be here: http://www.nettyroyal.nl/rose.html

[avogadro_number]

I'm afraid that anon is wrong with regards to the Scandinavian monarchies. They still have a great amoung of ceremony attached to their status and this is only fitting. They don't ride bikes around although they can be found in the city sometimes without an escort. The fact that they do not feel the need for armed security around them all the time surely speaks volumes about what a good job they are doing and the high opinion their subjects have of them. The answer Bill Bryson received when he asked a dane who would protect the Danish Queen if she was attacked was "We all would." I wonder if many other monarchs can feel quite so safe amoung their own 'people'? There is all the usual pomp attached to these monarchies and they perform an incredible service to sociecty just as the British one does.