Last year I heard of many people who were angered at the amount of taxpayer pounds that were going to security measures and other aspects of the British Royal Wedding. I know of many more people that feel that the monarchy is a waste of time and practically useless. Now, I understand that many Brits lke having it just because of the ideas of heritage and national identity that go into it, but some think that things would be beter off without them. For example, the Prime Minister would no longer have to spend time “consulting” with the Queen - from what I hear they just shoot the breeze and drink tea - and things could get done faster in the House of Commons without having to go through her “majesty”. Also, I personally think it would be wonderful if they transformed Buckingham Palace into a public museum: wouldn’t that be an experience? Furthermore, several colleagues and I feel that the whole idea behind the monarchy - that they have the God-given right to rule - represents a time in which the people did not truly govern themselves. This has certainly changed though, the monarch has for a very long time been nothing more than a figurehead, which is why some think having one around is pointless. I still maintain that the Founding Fathers of the United States had it right when they decided to break away from Britain. One of my personal heroes, the late great Christopher Hitchens, became an American citizen because of the popular sovereignty and freedoms guranteed to the people by the people, and the fact that the govenment and all its warships aren’t called “His/Her Majesty’s Government”, or “His/Her Majesty’s Ship”. Also, I understand that there are idiots that go crazy over all sorts of celebrities like they do for Prince William and Princess Kate, but it still sickens me that all these people act like William is more important than everyone else getting married in the world just because he happened to have been born into a group of snobby aristocrats. With people like Paris Hilton, no one would make as big a fuss over her wedding as they did with the royals. And at least her family was successful in creating luxury hotels; all the Queen does is sit there and look pretty…or pretty old.
So I ask your opinion. Do you think that the royals are spoiled brats that are of complete uselessness to the realistic legislative governing of the United Kingdom and that Britain should abolish the monarchy in the coming decades and take on a name that sounds a little less authoritarian - for example, the United British Republic? Or do you think that these super-privileged assholes should continue thinking that they’re more important than everyone else while living in seclusion in their several high-end mansions? :dubious:
I’m a strong republican, being an American and all. But:
-
I’ve seen no evidence the principle Royals are spoiled brats. They have all pretty much worked at real things, most of them in the military. Even Harry who had a wilder youth had done more actual work by the age of 25 than most people in my extended family.
-
I’m sure individual royals might be assholes but I don’t really know that I’d consider any of them to be especially assholish, I mean not more so than most people (since most everyone is an asshole to some degree.)
-
I would describe how they live as the exact opposite of seclusion. Howard Hughes lived in seclusion. Ted Kaczynski lived in seclusion, the royals do not live in seclusion.
I think the British monarchy is quaint and interesting, but I’m happy there is no monarchy in the United States. That being said, it’s entirely due to a philosophical belief of mine.
I suspect that if you count up the cost of all the pomp and circumstance of the British royalty it probably isn’t nearly as expensive as maintaining the image of the “imperial Presidency” here in the United States. There are massively unnecessary gilded toys and such that the POTUS has. You could potentially save some money by doing away with royalty but everything I’ve seen suggests a certain amount of pomp and flash is required at the national level. If you are proposing doing away with a separate Head of State altogether then I suspect the PM office would become more “Presidential” and his traveling entourage would become larger and more expensive as would his residence and etc. If you are talking about an elected or appointed Head of State, then they would retain some degree of gilt and glamor that would cost money.
Interestingly, and I may be totally off base here, it’s my understanding that since the 18th century Parliament has paid the expenses of the Royal Household in exchange for various incomes from properties legally owned by the monarch being given Parliament.
My understanding is in the modern era this comprises lots of properties throughout the UK that actually earn like £300m a year, so in some ways the monarchy may be profitable or at least self-funding in a way say, the American President isn’t. Now, obviously if you get rid of the monarch you can just call these traditional royal properties the people’s property and all, I’m not saying you can’t do that, I’m just saying technically I think the monarchy sort of pays for itself to a degree.
I’m okay with Queen Elizabeth II being the last monarch of Canada, after which we’d become the Republic of Canada, but I have to admit it’s not high on my list of priorities.
It’s an unfortunate reality but many people choose to be subservient and servile… hey seem to enjoy it.
The fact of some human being the product of a particular vagina and having special treatment, is absurd, but socially preferable for the British.
It’s a social dysfunction.
It’s also in effect in other places in the world, but for a developed country like England, one would think they would have dropped mentally disturbed notions like the worship of royals… but they haven’t.
But are they job creators?
If you wish to have a discussion on how a Constitutional monarchy is inferior to a republic then lets do it. If all you are going to do is flame the royals, then flame away just don’t expect a decent discussion.
I live under a constitutional monarchy and to be honest I can do without the rara around electing a president. How much money is WASTED on campaigning for what is really a puppet ruler at best.
OH I am a republican but I don’t want the USA type of republic, seems all a bit over the top to me. I like the Irish system where the president is really just a figurehead for the constitution, although the option of having the president appointed by 2/3 of the parliament has merit as well.
I think you’ll see more debate once QEII leaves. Like her or hate her, Queen Elizabeth has been pretty much on target with the British people and the Commonwealth. Has she ever missed a step?
She’s very likable even to those who are in favor of a Republic. The other royals are less likable, in some cases a lot less.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who really wants to oust QEII, but there are probably a lot more people, as one poster said, would be perfectly happy to do away with the monarchy once she passes
I don’t care whether there is a Monarch or not, but the country can afford the ‘best’ kind of democracy so, for me, it’s only an issue of the most effective checks and balances.
I do, however, like the Head of State being (a) non-party political and (b) pretty well ring-fenced from the temptation of corruption (directly or indirectly), if you can find me those qualities in another format, I’m all ears?
Becasue, at the end of the day, this isn’t about ‘spoilt’ or any other personalisation, it’s about the stability of the democracy itself.
Well, Queen aside, Canada has a ceremonial head of state (well, technically a viceregal) called the Governor-General (ostensibly a royal appointment, the prime ministers selects a candidate, who - typically - gets vetted by Parliament and then rubber-stamped into the post). Of course, a key factor is having a legislature that hasn’t developed a taste for fuck-around tactics and parliamentary tricks.
Instead the ships are called Ronald Reagan, and Roosevelt, etc. Constitutional monarchy severs an important part in a modern democracy: to deflect and direct the adoration of the people towards political harmless persons. It is bad when representatives with real power are subject to the same glorification. Besides representative democracy isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. Royals are also good pussy magnets for the rest of us. American girls get all soft and misty in the eyes when you tell them you come from a small country with princes, princesses, castles, royal barges, big silk dresses, diadems and what not.
David Mitchell has a reasonably good line on this: basically, if we change it, whatever we change it to will inevitably have flaws (the same as the current system). The main difference would be though that those flaws would be our fault. Better to moan about something that is an accident of history, especially when it’s all working reasonably well at the moment. I’ve basically changed my mind in this respect - I still don’t have any real time for the monarchy, but it’s not doing any real harm at the minute and changing the system could well bugger up the democracy we do have.
I reserve the right to change my mind again though if Charles turns out to be the meddlesome bugger he has been as Prince of Wales though.
Either way, can we still keep paragraphs?
You ought to meet another poster called Naxos, who was fond of phrasing his or her objection to monarchy in exactly that way.
Unfortunately **Naxos **was banned. Shortly before you joined, in fact.
I’m happy to keep it, for the reasons Sisu and PrettyVacant make.
I get into many debates with some British (small r) republicans about the monarchy as there are a lot of myths and half-truths about what they do, how they do it, how we pay for it, and what would be different under a republic.
How about that?
If you get rid of the primogeniture-based selection of a head of state, you’ll have to come up with a democratically-based system. That would be even worse.
That said, considering how generally powerless elected heads of state who are not also heads of government are, maybe there could just be a national referendum every five years with write-ins.
How cool would President Stephen Hawking be?
Not as cool as President Stephen Colbert.
I’m glad we established a republic in 1776, but if I were British I’d want to keep the House of Windsor in business. The traditions, history, ceremony, tourist lure and political utility of having a crowned monarch far outweigh any benefit that Great Britain might derive from dumping her or her successor(s), IMHO. The monarchy distinguishes the UK from dozens of other relatively small countries. The Queen earns goodwill for the UK wherever she goes, and gets attention and respect in a way that an elected or appointed head of state probably wouldn’t. The monarchy costs the individual British taxpayer little and seems to me to be a very good investment.
Unless you go the India route of appointing some notable and often non political citizen to the role, I fail to see how getting rid of the Queen would be beneficial, especially if you have a retired/failed Politician that you are usually going to end up with. Said politician will have none of the Monarchs prestige and experience and much much more of an inclination to interfere as s/he would also be “democratically elected”.
He’s in rebellion against The Queen’s English.
As an American, I think it’s up to the Brits to decide whether they want to remain a constitutional monarchy.