Should the British monarchy be abolished?

[Nova Imperius]

Getting rid of the monarchy wouldn't make them poor. They'd be richer because they'd earn the rent from all their property.

And we'd lose 160 million pounds that could go towards welfare or healthcare.

Does it go to welfere or those wastefull olympics.

I enjoyed the olympics, it helped show britain is still great. Life isnt all about getting free librarys and crap

[Ostroeuropa]

Incidentally, the view that the olympics were wasteful is not a common view after the fact.
Most people are quite happy we had them.

[The UK in Exile]

I assume this is the tired old crown estates nonsense. as I previously hinted, its nonsense.

It's nonsense because?..

because the crown estates are a separate legal entity from the monarchy, established by an act of parliament.

as such, wether we have a monarch or not has no bearing on the profits from the crown estates.

[Nova Imperius]

Incidentally, the view that the olympics were wasteful is not a common view after the fact.
Most people are quite happy we had them.

Yeah i think they were Great, showed we were still a big power and we have contributed SO much to the world

[Divair]

It's nonsense because?..

because the crown estates are a separate legal entity from the monarchy established by an act of parliament.

as such, wether we have a monarch or not has no bearing on the profits from the crown estates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

It is still owned by the Crown. If you get rid of one, I can't see the government successfully holding onto the other.

[Nova Imperius]

because the crown estates are a separate legal entity from the monarchy established by an act of parliament.

as such, wether we have a monarch or not has no bearing on the profits from the crown estates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

It is still owned by the Crown. If you get rid of one, I can't see the government successfully holding onto the other.

They do a good job in looking after our history though. Often give good amounts of personal wealth to projects etc.

[The UK in Exile]

because the crown estates are a separate legal entity from the monarchy established by an act of parliament.

as such, wether we have a monarch or not has no bearing on the profits from the crown estates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

It is still owned by the Crown. If you get rid of one, I can't see the government successfully holding onto the other.

We are governed by an Act of Parliament. The property we manage is owned by the Crown, but is not the private property of HM the Queen.

the Queen is not the Crown, nor the Crown the Queens.

[Draconikus]

For the Brit monarchy - no.

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

For those of you unwilling to view the video above, my argument can be summed up thusly - choose to either take a tax hike, or endorse illegal acts of government, or choose to keep a largely harmless institute of long standing.

Based on that argument alone, I choose the monarchy.

[Opaloka]

Only over my cold, dead body.

BANG!

Sad that Oliver Cromwell couldn't discover republicanism but the English did give the world the concept of cutting their heads off. The other stuff- Football Cricket etc has eventually come home and theres still time to practice on Thatcher.

[Churchilland]

Good god no! I like the royals myself, and they also bring in a lot of income through tourism

[Ifreann]

Only over my cold, dead body.

BANG!

Sad that Oliver Cromwell couldn't discover republicanism but the English did give the world the concept of cutting their heads off. The other stuff- Football Cricket etc has eventually come home and theres still time to practice on Thatcher.

Hating on Thatcher these days just makes you seem like an evil bastard picking on a sick old woman.

[The UK in Exile]

For the Brit monarchy - no.

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

For those of you unwilling to view the video above, my argument can be summed up thusly - choose to either take a tax hike, or endorse illegal acts of government, or choose to keep a largely harmless institute of long standing.

Based on that argument alone, I choose the monarchy.

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

for those unwilling to watch this video, the argument can be summed up thusly. the previous video was a crock of shit. which unsourced anonymous clip show you haven't watched you choose to believe is up to you.

[Aethelstania]

Im a republican with a small R. Do I disagree with the institution of monarchy? yes. Do we have far more pressing concerns in the UK at the moment? Certainly! The Windsor family has actually done quite a good job of serving the public and the like and I have a great deal of respect for the current queen; eventually I think the monarchy will and should end but now is not the time. Plus it is irritating when people suggest abolishing the royal family for the WRONG reasons; for example the cost issue is a complete non starter! The only legitimate reason for opposing the royal family is that they represent an outdated undemocratic form of governance which I think is strong enough to outweigh all of the 'pros'. What also bothers me is the snobbery of most of my comrades towards monarchists and the hatred towards one family who did not CHOOSE to hold the office.

[Machtergreifung]

A useless and outdated excuse for to give a microscopic segment of the population status above and beyond everyone else.

As for the arguement that the monarchy is inherintly "British", so is binge drinking; being "British" doesn't mean it's good.

[The Archregimancy]

You radical.

Independence for Northern Ireland and subsequent Irish unification in one thread; abolishing the British monarchy in another.

With this level of startlingly original insight, it's a wonder no one elects you president of the new Republic of Great Britain by popular acclaim.

Oh, but wait... you support the 'independence movements' of Scotland and Wales too; because everyone knows that James VI's accession to the throne of England was an example of evil English imperialism against the poor, oppressed Celts.

Children today... who teaches them history anyway?

Everybody has a right of an opinion.

That they do.

But that doesn't necessarily mean the opinion to which they have a right is in any way correct, not does it mean that the fact that they have a right to an opinion exempts said opinion from ridicule.

Especially when that ridicule is so richly justified.

[Emile Zola]

That as a society we are unequal and it is decided at birth.

It balances.

A flippant response. The thing about monarchists is that their answers are inconsistent. Either the monarch is symbolic or vitally important to government. Power rests with parliament or we need a monarch with reserve powers in case "democracy fails". 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.

Keep it.
I'm of an understanding that large groupings of people, can on some issues, have a 'mob' mentality, and often cling to ideas that are both stupid and dtermental in the long-run. Essentially, a person is smart, but people are dumb. There needs to be some form of safe guard so foolish populism does not get out of hand.

This is what monarchy is, conservatism unblemished. People are dumb and can't be trusted so it rests on their "betters" to restrain from their own stupidity.

[Machtergreifung]

Im a republican with a small R. Do I disagree with the institution of monarchy? yes. Do we have far more pressing concerns in the UK at the moment? Certainly! The Windsor family has actually done quite a good job of serving the public and the like and I have a great deal of respect for the current queen; eventually I think the monarchy will and should end but now is not the time. Plus it is irritating when people suggest abolishing the royal family for the WRONG reasons; for example the cost issue is a complete non starter! The only legitimate reason for opposing the royal family is that they represent an outdated undemocratic form of governance which I think is strong enough to outweigh all of the 'pros'. What also bothers me is the snobbery of most of my comrades towards monarchists and the hatred towards one family who did not CHOOSE to hold the office.

Besides the Princes being dragged through the military, what have the royal family actually done? I can't think of anything groundbreaking that they've done off the top of my head...

As for choosing not to hold the office, well, I don't see them complaining about the hardships of living in a palace.

[Ifreann]

Im a republican with a small R. Do I disagree with the institution of monarchy? yes. Do we have far more pressing concerns in the UK at the moment? Certainly! The Windsor family has actually done quite a good job of serving the public and the like and I have a great deal of respect for the current queen; eventually I think the monarchy will and should end but now is not the time. Plus it is irritating when people suggest abolishing the royal family for the WRONG reasons; for example the cost issue is a complete non starter! The only legitimate reason for opposing the royal family is that they represent an outdated undemocratic form of governance which I think is strong enough to outweigh all of the 'pros'. What also bothers me is the snobbery of most of my comrades towards monarchists and the hatred towards one family who did not CHOOSE to hold the office.

Besides the Princes being dragged through the military, what have the royal family actually done? I can't think of anything groundbreaking that they've done off the top of my head...

As for choosing not to hold the office, well, I don't see them complaining about the hardships of living in a palace.

Diana did some charity and Kate Middleton got her tits out.

[The UK in Exile]

Besides the Princes being dragged through the military, what have the royal family actually done? I can't think of anything groundbreaking that they've done off the top of my head...

As for choosing not to hold the office, well, I don't see them complaining about the hardships of living in a palace.

Diana did some charity and Kate Middleton got her tits out.

so did Katie Price, where's her Parade?

[Aethelstania]

Im a republican with a small R. Do I disagree with the institution of monarchy? yes. Do we have far more pressing concerns in the UK at the moment? Certainly! The Windsor family has actually done quite a good job of serving the public and the like and I have a great deal of respect for the current queen; eventually I think the monarchy will and should end but now is not the time. Plus it is irritating when people suggest abolishing the royal family for the WRONG reasons; for example the cost issue is a complete non starter! The only legitimate reason for opposing the royal family is that they represent an outdated undemocratic form of governance which I think is strong enough to outweigh all of the 'pros'. What also bothers me is the snobbery of most of my comrades towards monarchists and the hatred towards one family who did not CHOOSE to hold the office.

Besides the Princes being dragged through the military, what have the royal family actually done? I can't think of anything groundbreaking that they've done off the top of my head...

As for choosing not to hold the office, well, I don't see them complaining about the hardships of living in a palace.

The Queen does plenty of subtle things. No the royal family is'nt out there changing the world but they are behaving with decorum in a very diplomatic way; they are behaving exactly how a non executive president would and there doing it so well! also think of when the Queen addressed the Irish parliment; think how more powerful it was her doing it then Cameron or some other politico doing it. Charles has always been massively into green politics even when it was a fringe issue, you cant underestimate the influence the family has. Like I said they behave in a way you would expect the president of Germany would. And no they don't complain about it they do have a comfortable existance but they dont just sit on their arses in palaces all day they go out and meet people. Im anti o the instiutution but i think you do have to adress the issue pragmaticaly and actually realize that whilst the monarchy is a bad instutin you cant say the royals have not performed their role very well.

[Morrdh]

Besides the Princes being dragged through the military, what have the royal family actually done? I can't think of anything groundbreaking that they've done off the top of my head...

Lizzie volunteered as a driver-mechanic during WW2 and drove an ambulance through the streets of Blitz torn London.

Prince Andrew was a helicopter helicopter during the Falklands War and rescued several people from a burning ship by landing directly on the deck at great risk to himself.

William is currently serving in the RAF as a Search and Rescue helicopter pilot.

Charles IIRC is the patron of a number of charities.

[Johz]

Exactly as we are when governed by David Cameron. There is no way that someone from my part of Birmingham could become Prime Minister, or even just head of one of the three main parties. Hell, I'd imagine most of us would struggle just to get elected. As for forming part of a Cabinet...

Yes, the Monarchial system has unfair overtones. But if we're going to deal with the lack of fairness in the world - which would a very good thing, to be honest - we might as well start with the institutionalised elitism that does actually affect the way our country is run, rather than the one which makes no difference to anything.

because its not like we've ever had a PM who was the daughter of a green grocer. or the son of a farm labourer. or a Navy NCO. or a carpenter. or a teacher.

and even one from birmingham.

Of those, three demonstrate the importance of a grammar system that has been all but destroyed, one was the privately-educated son of a Mayor, and the other two are shining examples that were born in the 1800s. Try again.

[BrightonBurg]

I voted no,I will take a king or queen over a crappy BS politican anyday..

[Machtergreifung]

Diana did some charity and Kate Middleton got her tits out.

so did Katie Price, where's her Parade?

Exactly, what's so special about the royal family support charities, seeing as it's fairly common to have big names attached to it?

Besides the Princes being dragged through the military, what have the royal family actually done? I can't think of anything groundbreaking that they've done off the top of my head...

Lizzie volunteered as a driver-mechanic during WW2 and drove an ambulance through the streets of Blitz torn London.

Prince Andrew was a helicopter helicopter during the Falklands War and rescued several people from a burning ship by landing directly on the deck at great risk to himself.

William is currently serving in the RAF as a Search and Rescue helicopter pilot.

Charles IIRC is the patron of a number of charities.

Royal's serving in the military is nothing new, and thousands of other people do it. Should we give every frontline soldier, pilot and driver a royal title? By those standards, they've certainly earned it.

You mean the same Prince Andrew that seems to keep getting involved with shoddy Kazack buisnessmen and sex offenders?

[The UK in Exile]

because its not like we've ever had a PM who was the daughter of a green grocer. or the son of a farm labourer. or a Navy NCO. or a carpenter. or a teacher.

and even one from birmingham.

Of those, three demonstrate the importance of a grammar system that has been all but destroyed, one was the privately-educated son of a Mayor, and the other two are shining examples that were born in the 1800s. Try again.

nope. I've adressed your point. the fact that you've now seen fit to caveat it is your problem. nothing stopping you going to a good school. hell, Ed Milliband when to a State school.