Abolish the UK and German Monarchy

[Arglwydd Golau]

I do find it hard to believe that some see the value of the Royal Family purely as a tourist attraction. My understanding is that they were supposed to be more than that. (doesn't bother me as I've always been a Republican)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I do find it hard to believe that some see the value of the Royal Family purely as a tourist attraction. My understanding is that they were supposed to be more than that. (doesn't bother me as I've always been a Republican)

The fact that people happen to be arguing about how much money the existence of the Royal Family causes to be brought into this country doesn't imply they think that's the main reason for having a monarchy. Certainly in my case, it isn't at all. I'm merely contesting a specific point on which I think others have made claims that are incorrect.

 

[Trog]

I think that one of the best arguments to leave the monarchy well alone, is that everything set up by recent governments has been badly thought out and expensive.

If the system was changed you can bet your boots that the replacement would cost twice as much and end up in an embarrassing fiasco. If you divide the cost of the monarchy by the size of the population, the cost per head is such. That even the most ardent republicans are getting their moneys worth, just out of having something to moan about.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think that one of the best arguments to leave the monarchy well alone, is that everything set up by recent governments has been badly thought out and expensive.

If the system was changed you can bet your boots that the replacement would cost twice as much and end up in an embarrassing fiasco. If you divide the cost of the monarchy by the size of the population, the cost per head is such. That even the most ardent republicans are getting their moneys worth, just out of having something to moan about.

It's quite a depressing indictment of our own society that - unlike most democracies - the majority of Britons don't trust one of their peers to be head of state, and don't trust tried and tested methods of government which work well in other democracies.

I used to ascribe apathy towards a democratic reform to an unwillingness to change, but after Brexit I am not so sure the average Briton is as afraid of change as I once thought.

What a sad and misanthropic state of affairs.

 

[NSEFAN]

I used to ascribe apathy towards a democratic reform to an unwillingness to change, but after Brexit I am not so sure the average Briton is as afraid of change as I once thought.

What a sad and misanthropic state of affairs.

Perhaps we are too cynical for our own good. Perhaps we are secretly happy to have bad leadership, so as to not be denied the satisfaction of seeing it all go wrong. Perhaps the Brexit result is the sign of a nation desperate for a crisis.

 

[Trog]

It's quite a depressing indictment of our own society that - unlike most democracies - the majority of Britons don't trust one of their peers to be head of state, and don't trust tried and tested methods of government which work well in other democracies.

The whole point is that it would not be one of our peers, but someone from the political class, getting second prize as a bribe not to rock the boat for the PM.

Also is it not a bit random picking our leader by which bed they were born in. Did we all perhaps have the same chance of picking that one?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Which tourist attraction brings more money in? A palace charging entry at £10-20 a time, or a mostly empty private house where people stand in the street for free?

Depends what other places they go to while they are on holiday here And actually some people do pay to visit parts of it. (As an aside, I don't think in purely financial terms, and I would suggest the pleasure people gain from visiting free attractions is important, although I realise that's not pertinent to a discussion of how much money is generated by tourism).

Do you really think there would be a net loss of income to Britain - as in, people, large scale, deciding not to come here, if the royals were shuffled away?

Yes, I think there would be a net loss of income, although I don't know how big (and I should stress, that's not my main reason for supporting the monarchy). I think their popularity and the emotional attachment that many people in different countries feel towards them is very self-evident from the crowds on their foreign visits, and the enthusiasm with which huge numbers of people follow news about them. Since the royal family is so closely associated with the UK, it would be very implausible for that not to translate into a desire in some people to visit the places that are associated with the Queen etc. - most obviously, London. (I realize though that it would be very hard to measure the effect precisely).

I'm going to hazard a guess that you personally don't feel much emotion towards the Royal Family, and perhaps therefore you don't really get the way many other people feel towards them, or the happiness that many people derive (however illogical it appears) from the existence of the monarchy and the respect/admiration they feel?

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't feel much emotion towards the Royals, no.

I've met all the senior Royals (except Kate). I promise they're just people like you and me.

 

[Senex]

I'm going to hazard a guess that you personally don't feel much emotion towards the Royal Family, and perhaps therefore you don't really get the way many other people feel towards them, or the happiness that many people derive (however illogical it appears) from the existence of the monarchy and the respect/admiration they feel?

I certainly don't get it at all. Why should anyone feel respect or admiration for members of this family or for the anachronistic institution they represent? (And why should organisations like the otherwise lefty BBC employ professional arse-lickers to wander around after the so-called royal family and fawn on everything they do?)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Are there similar calls to abolish the monarchy in Norway, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg? Does the historical type of state religion have anything to do with this?

 

[northwichcat]

Are there similar calls to abolish the monarchy in Norway, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg? Does the historical type of state religion have anything to do with this?

Well the Queen is officially the head of the Church of England so if the monarchy was abolished you would need a replacement even if it's just transferring the title to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Changing of the Guard would occur even if the Palace was used as a President's residence.

Would it?

The reason for the Guard is to protect the Sovereign and the Royal Palaces, the President would not be a Sovereign as indeed the Palaces would no longer be Royal

The changing of the guard procession happens every 48 hours. Seriously you don't expect the guards to be on duty for 48 hours so there's many changing of the guards without the official procession.

London isn't the only place to have a changing of the guard ceremony - you can see them in places both inside and outside the Commonwealth including Gibraltar, Quebec City and Athens.

 

[AlterEgo]

Are there similar calls to abolish the monarchy in Norway, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg? Does the historical type of state religion have anything to do with this?

http://www.aerm.org

 

[ExRes]

The changing of the guard procession happens every 48 hours. Seriously you don't expect the guards to be on duty for 48 hours so there's many changing of the guards without the official procession.

I beg your pardon, where on earth did I say any such thing? I simply stated the official reason for the Royal Guard and the changing of it, the rest is down to your imagination

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

http://www.aerm.org

Does the fact that this body was founded as late as 2010 surprise anyone?

 

[northwichcat]

I beg your pardon, where on earth did I say any such thing? I simply stated the official reason for the Royal Guard and the changing of it, the rest is down to your imagination

You said the changing of the guard would happen anyway. I was pointing out there are many changing of guards which happen without any big procession.

 

[najaB]

Haven't read all the thread so apologies if this is repeating something already said... The benefit of a monarchy is that the head of state isn't a politician, nor appointed by politicians.

So, by definition, is better than any politician.

Edit: My alternative would be a rotating presidency, chosen by lottery.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Haven't read all the thread so apologies if this is repeating something already said... The benefit of a monarchy is that the head of state isn't a politician, nor appointed by politicians.

So, by definition, better than any politician.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

That's hardly a positive motive for having a Monarchy. I haven't read a positive reason on this thread yet, it all seems to be about money, I thought that Monarchists believed in something deeper!

 

[Trog]

We do that the country needs a neutral figurehead and that almost anything is better than politicians.

 

[AlterEgo]

We do that the country needs a neutral figurehead and that almost anything is better than politicians.

Why do we need this? Is it to keep us out of conflict? Doesn't seem to have worked very well.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Since the Restoration of the Monarchy in 1660, on how many occasions has the matter of retention of the monarchy been debated by Members of Parliament.

I note the earlier statement that the monarch is the titular head of the Church of England.

 

[anme]

Do the monarchists here believe countries without a royal family should abolish their presidencies and install a monarch? It would seem bizarre if not.

How would such a country go about selecting a family to be royal? Maybe by lottery, with the family changing every year? Or some sort of reality TV show?

 

[AlterEgo]

Since the Restoration of the Monarchy in 1660, on how many occasions has the matter of retention of the monarchy been debated by Members of Parliament.

I note the earlier statement that the monarch is the titular head of the Church of England.

Zero times. It is illegal for our elected representatives to debate the interests of the monarch in parliament without the monarch's consent.

Democracy and freedom of expression, don't you just love it?

 

[Trog]

Why do we need this? Is it to keep us out of conflict? Doesn't seem to have worked very well.

Virtually every country seems to have a head of state so it seems to be a human need that a national organisation has someone at the top.

As for keeping us out of conflict England/UK is one of the worlds oldest national states having existed since about the time of King Alfred so we must be doing something right.

 

[ExRes]

Do the monarchists here believe countries without a royal family should abolish their presidencies and install a monarch? It would seem bizarre if not.

How would such a country go about selecting a family to be royal? Maybe by lottery, with the family changing every year? Or some sort of reality TV show?

I would hazard that the majority would find no reason to change for the sake of change, there are no perfect monarchies and no perfect republics, I don't believe there is anything bizarre about not trying to push your preference onto others

I reckon the public vote for a monarch could be quite interesting, this country would probably come up with King Abdul and Queen Shazza of the House of Soapy McSoapface

As an aside, is it not strange that most of the anti monarchist public fawned so pathetically over Diana? there seemed to be no argument about the sudden promotion to royalty making her chosen by God to rule over us

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Do the monarchists here believe countries without a royal family should abolish their presidencies and install a monarch? It would seem bizarre if not.

The Spanish Constitution of 1978 re-established a Constitutional Monarchy in that country.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Zero times. It is illegal for our elected representatives to debate the interests of the monarch in parliament without the monarch's consent.

You've made that claim a couple of times, but I've not heard it before and I can't find any source that confirms it. Can you provide some links? Note that I can find links to Parliament for example debating the Royal Family's finances, which rather suggests to me there is no issue here.

Democracy and freedom of expression, don't you just love it?

If the ban is as you say and if there is no good reason for it, then presumably it could be overturned while keeping the monarchy. Your point would sound like an argument for a modest law reform, not an argument for abolishing the monarchy.

 

[yorksrob]

Do the monarchists here believe countries without a royal family should abolish their presidencies and install a monarch? It would seem bizarre if not.

How would such a country go about selecting a family to be royal? Maybe by lottery, with the family changing every year? Or some sort of reality TV show?

I note that those countries with constitutional monarchies, for example, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc, tend to be those sensible countries which one would aspire to be like. Not a bad club to be in I think.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Those loyal people in North Korea seem to feel that a monarchy would not be something good enough that would reflect their love for The Glorious Leader but regard the Kim dynasty as deity.

Not bad for an out and out Communist regime...

 

[J-2739]

Zero times. It is illegal for our elected representatives to debate the interests of the monarch in parliament without the monarch's consent.

Democracy and freedom of expression, don't you just love it?

That's made me wonder how good our freedom of expression is compared to other western countries...