Should the British monarchy be abolished?

[Machtergreifung]

never let facts get in the way of monarchist pageantry.

The rest of the nation loves pageantries as well, monarchist or otherwise.

No, we don't.

If pageantries and such are all we keep the royals around for, demote them to normal citizens and let them keep their palaces. They should have no place in politics, except as private citizens.

[The Godly Nations]

The rest of the nation loves pageantries as well, monarchist or otherwise.

No, we don't.

If pageantries and such are all we keep the royals around for, demote them to normal citizens and let them keep their palaces. They should have no place in politics, except as private citizens.

Yes we do.

And, no, they have a larger role than for pageantries and pomp, they embody our nation, our people, our tradition, our culture, and our history.

[The UK in Exile]

No, we don't.

If pageantries and such are all we keep the royals around for, demote them to normal citizens and let them keep their palaces. They should have no place in politics, except as private citizens.

Yes we do.

And, no, they have a larger role than for pageantries and pomp, they embody our nation, our people, our tradition, our culture, and our history.

no we don't.

and no, they don't.

not unless you're claiming they embody our culture due to all living in the same house, claiming benefits and being on the recieving end of tabloid journalism. in which case, you'd have a point.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yes we do.

And, no, they have a larger role than for pageantries and pomp, they embody our nation, our people, our tradition, our culture, and our history.

no we don't.

and no, they don't.

not unless you're claiming they embody our culture due to all living in the same house, claiming benefits and being on the recieving end of tabloid journalism. in which case, you'd have a point.

Also she apparently hates margaret thatcher.

[The Two Jerseys]

It occurs to me that the only legal way to abolish the monarchy would be via act of Parliament, which would require royal assent to take effect.
And I don't really see the Sovereign just agreeing to hand power over...

Also, if you don't like the idea of being ruled by a monarch, there's this place called the USA where we don't have one...

[The UK in Exile]

It occurs to me that the only legal way to abolish the monarchy would be via act of Parliament, which would require royal assent to take effect.
And I don't really see the Sovereign just agreeing to hand power over...

Also, if you don't like the idea of being ruled by a monarch, there's this place called the USA where we don't have one...

the Queen grants Royal Assent based on the advice of her ministers, and its really rather unlikely that they will advise that she refuses assent to a bill they would have put forward themselves.

[Forsher]

It occurs to me that the only legal way to abolish the monarchy would be via act of Parliament, which would require royal assent to take effect.
And I don't really see the Sovereign just agreeing to hand power over...

Also, if you don't like the idea of being ruled by a monarch, there's this place called the USA where we don't have one...

the Queen grants Royal Assent based on the advice of her ministers, and its really rather unlikely that they will advise that she refuses assent to a bill they would have put forward themselves.

The only question is whether Commons would bypass Lords in such an event.

[Forster Keys]

Yes, they should, I'm not necessarily saying Republic and/or more Democracy, but yes abolish the monarchy. It cost a lot of money, I don't understand how they can justify them inheriting power, etc.

No, it doesn't cost us lots of money to keep our Monarchy, our traditions, etc. It does cost us lots of money when our elected leaders decided that we, Britons, don't have a need for a backbone and start buying into America's war.

Well elect Old Labour then.

[Forster Keys]

Militant English monarchists would be something to behold.

We 'Militant British Monarchist' prefer to be called Cavaliers.

Cavalier haven't existed for centuries. The closest thing to militant monarchists in the UK now would have to be, as Shard Hard alluded to, the loyalist paramilitaries in NI.

[Emile Zola]

Either the monarch is symbolic or vitally important to government.

It can be both and it is. You see, the monarch is symbolic but even with what little power is still around they are important. You'll note that the GG's powers are derived from the Crown while the Queen is a symbol.

In the UK things are slightly different but the monarch is more symbollic of certain tradtions and the like rather than power itself.

As I have previously stated answers from monarchists are inconsistent (see above). So the monarch is a vitally important symbol with powers, who has representatives who exercise her powers but symbolically and so on, and so on... You have given me your interpretation not a justification. Can government function without a monarch? Yes it can. The Australian Capital Territory

has no vice-regal post exercising authority as the representative of the Head of State, such as a Governor or an Administrator. Instead, the functions of the head of the Executive—commissioning government, proroguing parliament and enacting legislation—are exercised by the Assembly itself and by the Chief Minister.

If Australia ever became a republic I would advocate the same position and argue against the need of a President.

Power rests with parliament or we need a monarch with reserve powers in case "democracy fails".

That is also not inconsistent. Parliament rules, yes. The thing about powers being in reserve is that they are used in reserve... not to rule as a matter of course.

Again can government function without it? The Whitlam Dismissal in 1975 proved that a G-G using their reserve powers isn't a solution but exposed the flaws and limitations of our constitution. It was a monkey wrench in the gears of government that even the conservatives who came into power amended the constitution to avoid a repeat.

The answer is straightforward you either accept we are equal or you don't. And monarchy is inconsistent with that value regardless of what caveats you impose on it.

I disagree.

I cannot vote in the Maori electorate but I consider myself to be equal with those who can. I see no difference.

Another flippant response. How does the Maori electorate have anything to do with the monarchy? Nothing. Disagree all you like but you can't refute my statement. This why monarchists are inconsistent. It has everything to do with their emotional attachment to an institution and nothing to do with the necessity of it's role in government.

[OBIDOS]

France is socialist.
And you oppressed all of Ireland for 120 years, and you continue to oppress a portion of it to this very day.

With a very loose definition of oppress... that is, one that is totally meaningless, yes, you're right.

The portion where the majority want to remain British, and have elected to do so?

Wow, that's some tyranny right there.

It's either anti-imperialism or a the typical foreign understanding of British and Irish politics. That's the opinion of an openly foreign person.

Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket.

The other baskets include, football hooligans, a dour happy hour, bad food and bad weather.

Plus, the special relationship which, to a foreign observer, looks like it is using the other meaning of special.

If you're going to use that logic, you got robbed of your Britishness way back in 1066 when the Normans took over.

William, unlike Harold, did have a blood claim. On the other hand there's that business with Danelaw, so you're wrong anyway.

On the other hand, look when the British Monarchy came about. As opposed to, you know, England, England and Wales and all that jazz.

You don't speak for Britain. I'm British and you don't speak for me. The Monarchy is not the embodiment of Britishness. You know the present lot are of German stock.

So are all proper English people... Angles, dear boy.

No True Englishman right there because Scotland doesn't exist. Part of England, don'cha know? Oh, wait, that's as silly as calling the Queen German, which you, to be fair, didn't do.

The essence of Britishness is humor, sarcasm, the impulse to crack a joke WHENEVER one is possible, laughing at people who take themselves seriously, passively hating the french, not taking food very seriously, but being booze fanatics, and a sense of individualism and fair play.

In other words, Prince Philip... always has a joke, although his sense of humour is, well, questionable.

History, lad, history. There was no such thing as a single political entity called 'Britain' back then. Only a group of Saxon tribes in England, some Celtic kingdoms in Wales, and more Kingdoms in Scotland.

Harold's gaining the throne just gave him the title to match his power.

Well when people say Britishness they usually mean Englishness. There had already been a pretty much united English kingdom for 100 years or so.

Not United in the same sense of United today.

The Earldoms, and especially the Northern Ones (you know, Oop North), had very distinct identities.

Plus, Britain is Britain, England is England and the St George Cross is for skin heads, I've seen This Is England.

[Machtergreifung]

No, we don't.

If pageantries and such are all we keep the royals around for, demote them to normal citizens and let them keep their palaces. They should have no place in politics, except as private citizens.

Yes we do.

And, no, they have a larger role than for pageantries and pomp, they embody our nation, our people, our tradition, our culture, and our history.

No, we don't. Back to you.

Explain to me how the royal family embody Irish people, or Welsh for that matter, other than the heir calling himself the Prince thereof.

Yes we do.

And, no, they have a larger role than for pageantries and pomp, they embody our nation, our people, our tradition, our culture, and our history.

no we don't.

and no, they don't.

not unless you're claiming they embody our culture due to all living in the same house, claiming benefits and being on the recieving end of tabloid journalism. in which case, you'd have a point.

Your sarcasm has reinforced my arguement. They aren't anything like the average Britain, so how do they embody us or relate to the majority in the slightest?

The truth is that they don't, they're on the same level as D grade celebrities. And they can be D grade celebrities just as well as private citizens as they can being a useless and unnessissary part of Britain's government.

[Raurosia]

CGPGrey!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

[The UK in Exile]

CGPGrey!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

no

see below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2IO5ifWKdw

[Forsher]

It can be both and it is. You see, the monarch is symbolic but even with what little power is still around they are important. You'll note that the GG's powers are derived from the Crown while the Queen is a symbol.

In the UK things are slightly different but the monarch is more symbollic of certain tradtions and the like rather than power itself.

As I have previously stated answers from monarchists are inconsistent (see above). So the monarch is a vitally important symbol with powers, who has representatives who exercise her powers but symbolically and so on, and so on... You have given me your interpretation not a justification. Can government function without a monarch? Yes it can. The Australian Capital Territory

has no vice-regal post exercising authority as the representative of the Head of State, such as a Governor or an Administrator. Instead, the functions of the head of the Executive—commissioning government, proroguing parliament and enacting legislation—are exercised by the Assembly itself and by the Chief Minister.

If Australia ever became a republic I would advocate the same position and argue against the need of a President.

You haven't actually explained how there is an inconistency.

You have given an interpretation.

Your answer is based in a substitute. Basically, because X can fulfill the same function as Y (which, to my mind is entirely symbolic) there is no need for a monarch. Sure, that's cool but it is rather obvious that this isn't an argument at all.

Because a Monarch can do what the Assembly and its Chief Minister can do there's no need for them. They aren't important at all.

The role matters. The Crown itself is mostly symbolic. At the moment the monarch is both.

That is also not inconsistent. Parliament rules, yes. The thing about powers being in reserve is that they are used in reserve... not to rule as a matter of course.

Again can government function without it? The Whitlam Dismissal in 1975 proved that a G-G using their reserve powers isn't a solution but exposed the flaws and limitations of our constitution. It was a monkey wrench in the gears of government that even the conservatives who came into power amended the constitution to avoid a repeat.

Reserve powers aren't used as a manner of course. This is why they are reserve powers.

The idea, to my mind, is that they are a threat that it is agreed isn't used but they would have to be used in some circumstances and they will make it worse and you will be blamed because everyone knows the Monarch is powerless and so don't create those circumstances.

I disagree.

I cannot vote in the Maori electorate but I consider myself to be equal with those who can. I see no difference.

Another flippant response. How does the Maori electorate have anything to do with the monarchy? Nothing. Disagree all you like but you can't refute my statement. This why monarchists are inconsistent. It has everything to do with their emotional attachment to an institution and nothing to do with the necessity of it's role in government.

To me, the position of Monarch is just another seat with a roll I'm not on. And they aren't on my roll. Exact parallel.

Sure the method of decision is different but then Australia uses two systems... one for each house.

[The UK in Exile]

As I have previously stated answers from monarchists are inconsistent (see above). So the monarch is a vitally important symbol with powers, who has representatives who exercise her powers but symbolically and so on, and so on... You have given me your interpretation not a justification. Can government function without a monarch? Yes it can. The Australian Capital Territory If Australia ever became a republic I would advocate the same position and argue against the need of a President.

You haven't actually explained how there is an inconistency.

You have given an interpretation.

Your answer is based in a substitute. Basically, because X can fulfill the same function as Y (which, to my mind is entirely symbolic) there is no need for a monarch. Sure, that's cool but it is rather obvious that this isn't an argument at all.

Because a Monarch can do what the Assembly and its Chief Minister can do there's no need for them. They aren't important at all.

The role matters. The Crown itself is mostly symbolic. At the moment the monarch is both.

Again can government function without it? The Whitlam Dismissal in 1975 proved that a G-G using their reserve powers isn't a solution but exposed the flaws and limitations of our constitution. It was a monkey wrench in the gears of government that even the conservatives who came into power amended the constitution to avoid a repeat.

Reserve powers aren't used as a manner of course. This is why they are reserve powers.

The idea, to my mind, is that they are a threat that it is agreed isn't used but they would have to be used in some circumstances and they will make it worse and you will be blamed because everyone knows the Monarch is powerless and so don't create those circumstances.

Another flippant response. How does the Maori electorate have anything to do with the monarchy? Nothing. Disagree all you like but you can't refute my statement. This why monarchists are inconsistent. It has everything to do with their emotional attachment to an institution and nothing to do with the necessity of it's role in government.

To me, the position of Monarch is just another seat with a roll I'm not on. And they aren't on my roll. Exact parallel.

Sure the method of decision is different but then Australia uses two systems... one for each house.

none of the above really makes sense. but what the hell.

the Queen can't fufill the role of the Assembly or Chief Ministers because lacking a democratic mandate she can't, or shouldn't, be allowed to wield any politicial power. and faced with a crisis that requires the use of some notional reserve power, the lack of any popular support (being popular is not the same as popular support, its easy to be loved when all you do is wear nice hats and wave.) creates similar problems.

regarding a symbolic role the issue is that stating the Queen is symbolic of british culture, history, nationality et wank al, isn't actually an answer. Because of course, no two british people agree on what our national culture, history, nationality et wank al actually are. therefore we are forced to assume that what people mean is that the Queen symbolizes the Great British Tradition of being ruled by a hereditary aristocrat (because when you get down to brass tacks, thats what a monarchy is.), because apparently our national identity is defined by having a hereditary aristocrat in charge. a particular symbolism which seems as odd as if the german people insisted on calling the current german president "the Fuhrer" and letting him wear old Nazi uniforms. because, hey, its a shared cultural experience.

[Bears Armed]

regarding a symbolic role the issue is that stating the Queen is symbolic of british culture, history, nationality et wank al, isn't actually an answer. Because of course, no two british people agree on what our national culture, history, nationality et wank al actually are. therefore we are forced to assume that what people mean is that the Queen symbolizes the Great British Tradition of being ruled by a hereditary aristocrat (because when you get down to brass tacks, thats what a monarchy is.), because apparently our national identity is defined by having a hereditary aristocrat in charge. a particular symbolism which seems as odd as if the german people insisted on calling the current german president "the Fuhrer" and letting him wear old Nazi uniforms. because, hey, its a shared cultural experience.

Goodwin's Law: You lose...

[The UK in Exile]

regarding a symbolic role the issue is that stating the Queen is symbolic of british culture, history, nationality et wank al, isn't actually an answer. Because of course, no two british people agree on what our national culture, history, nationality et wank al actually are. therefore we are forced to assume that what people mean is that the Queen symbolizes the Great British Tradition of being ruled by a hereditary aristocrat (because when you get down to brass tacks, thats what a monarchy is.), because apparently our national identity is defined by having a hereditary aristocrat in charge. a particular symbolism which seems as odd as if the german people insisted on calling the current german president "the Fuhrer" and letting him wear old Nazi uniforms. because, hey, its a shared cultural experience.

Goodwin's Law: You lose...

oh fine.

a particular symbolism which seems as odd as if the american people insisted on calling the current president "the King" and letting him have a bunch of people with redcoats guard the white house. because, hey, its a shared cultural experience.

[Laerod]

regarding a symbolic role the issue is that stating the Queen is symbolic of british culture, history, nationality et wank al, isn't actually an answer. Because of course, no two british people agree on what our national culture, history, nationality et wank al actually are. therefore we are forced to assume that what people mean is that the Queen symbolizes the Great British Tradition of being ruled by a hereditary aristocrat (because when you get down to brass tacks, thats what a monarchy is.), because apparently our national identity is defined by having a hereditary aristocrat in charge. a particular symbolism which seems as odd as if the german people insisted on calling the current german president "the Fuhrer" and letting him wear old Nazi uniforms. because, hey, its a shared cultural experience.

Goodwin's Law: You lose... :p

That's not how that works.

[Fontoria]

Yes. Theymust be abolished. Those rich snobs diserve nothing, what have they even done? Set up a few charitys and command a few regiments in the army, yet not be in amuch if any real trouble? I hate monarchy, but it wouldn't be so bad if they were not born into the family. If we really have to keep this outdated system, then at least give it to someone who diserves it and earned it instead of some spoilt snobs.

[Anarkadia]

The monarchy is pretty irrelevant, anyways - except for posing nude and as Nazis. Oh yeah, and royal headaches. I mean weddings.

Otherwise, I would say sure - but don't stop there.

[Grave_n_idle]

Yes. Theymust be abolished. Those rich snobs diserve nothing, what have they even done? Set up a few charitys and command a few regiments in the army, yet not be in amuch if any real trouble? I hate monarchy, but it wouldn't be so bad if they were not born into the family. If we really have to keep this outdated system, then at least give it to someone who diserves it and earned it instead of some spoilt snobs.

You should try reading a biography of Elizabeth II. Perhaps you'd have a different perspective.

[Free Tristania]

The Brits can do whatever they want when it comes to their own Royal Family but I believe that here in the Netherlands the monarchy should be abolished as soon as Queen Beatrix abdicates.

No, Netherlands stays. I don't care a fadoodle about what government I live in, just as long as it's not Socialism or Communism, and that I have the freedom of Speech. Plus, there are a lot of heirs to the throne, and honestly, imagine the Netherlands as having an abolished monarchy. Crazy.

We have only been one since 1815. Decided by who ? The British. So let's return to a modernised version of the Dutch Republic. Which in the modern form would be something like Switzerland or the United States.

[Forsher]

You haven't actually explained how there is an inconistency.

You have given an interpretation.

Your answer is based in a substitute. Basically, because X can fulfill the same function as Y (which, to my mind is entirely symbolic) there is no need for a monarch. Sure, that's cool but it is rather obvious that this isn't an argument at all.

Because a Monarch can do what the Assembly and its Chief Minister can do there's no need for them. They aren't important at all.

The role matters. The Crown itself is mostly symbolic. At the moment the monarch is both.



Reserve powers aren't used as a manner of course. This is why they are reserve powers.

The idea, to my mind, is that they are a threat that it is agreed isn't used but they would have to be used in some circumstances and they will make it worse and you will be blamed because everyone knows the Monarch is powerless and so don't create those circumstances.



To me, the position of Monarch is just another seat with a roll I'm not on. And they aren't on my roll. Exact parallel.

Sure the method of decision is different but then Australia uses two systems... one for each house.

none of the above really makes sense. but what the hell.

the Queen can't fufill the role of the Assembly or Chief Ministers because lacking a democratic mandate she can't, or shouldn't, be allowed to wield any politicial power. and faced with a crisis that requires the use of some notional reserve power, the lack of any popular support (being popular is not the same as popular support, its easy to be loved when all you do is wear nice hats and wave.) creates similar problems.

That bit clearly didn't get across well. What it is meant to be saying is that because the the Assembly can do what the Monarch can do the Monarch can quite obviously do it as well.

regarding a symbolic role the issue is that stating the Queen is symbolic of british culture, history, nationality et wank al, isn't actually an answer. Because of course, no two british people agree on what our national culture, history, nationality et wank al actually are. therefore we are forced to assume that what people mean is that the Queen symbolizes the Great British Tradition of being ruled by a hereditary aristocrat (because when you get down to brass tacks, thats what a monarchy is.), because apparently our national identity is defined by having a hereditary aristocrat in charge. a particular symbolism which seems as odd as if the german people insisted on calling the current german president "the Fuhrer" and letting him wear old Nazi uniforms. because, hey, its a shared cultural experience.

I'm pretty sure we've been talking about symbolic in the sense of "figurehead" not "Britannia."

And a Fuehrer is a Chancellor plus a President so that comparison wouldn't work. I mean with Chancellor, maybe, because Merkel actually matters...

Goodwin's Law: You lose...

That's not how that works.

It's Godwin's Law and it only applies when the comparison isn't valid, correct?

And anyway, I'm fairly certain it is the wrong sort of symbolic. I was talking about the other sort.

No, Netherlands stays. I don't care a fadoodle about what government I live in, just as long as it's not Socialism or Communism, and that I have the freedom of Speech. Plus, there are a lot of heirs to the throne, and honestly, imagine the Netherlands as having an abolished monarchy. Crazy.

We have only been one since 1815. Decided by who ? The British. So let's return to a modernised version of the Dutch Republic. Which in the modern form would be something like Switzerland or the United States.

The United States presents a bad and old-fashioned version of a republic.

If you were going to have a republic the best way to do it would be a parliamentarily appointed president who does nothing except act like the Queen.

Except without the Crown's being there it is hard to convince people that that is actually better.

Heads of States should be entirely symbolic.

[The UK in Exile]

none of the above really makes sense. but what the hell.

the Queen can't fufill the role of the Assembly or Chief Ministers because lacking a democratic mandate she can't, or shouldn't, be allowed to wield any politicial power. and faced with a crisis that requires the use of some notional reserve power, the lack of any popular support (being popular is not the same as popular support, its easy to be loved when all you do is wear nice hats and wave.) creates similar problems.

That bit clearly didn't get across well. What it is meant to be saying is that because the the Assembly can do what the Monarch can do the Monarch can quite obviously do it as well.

and you'd be wrong, for the reason I stated, which you didn't adress.