Go back
British Monarchy

British Monarchy

Debates

3 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Seitse
Yeah, I meant absolute monarchy as real monarchy.

Interesting point: If the Queen is legally disempowered,
would you accept her existence as a mere symbol? (astronomic
budget included)

Is there a recent nation-wide poll on sympathy regarding the
royalty? ([i]I see no other way of demonstrating that they
at least serve as a source of social cohesion ...[text shortened]... rt of a gratitude thing for the
construction of the attractions that currently exists nowadays.
[/i][/b]I'd settle for the monarch remaining in place, with no constitutional powers, on a salary (say, the same as senior civil servant).

Their houses and estates would become public property (maybe they could keep a small one).

I'm not aware of any such survey, but you'd find it would vary a lot by location - in the south of England, you'd get more support for the monarchy.

Edit - found this small survey from 1998. Doesn't have much to say about social cohesion etc. though. http://www.mori.com/polls/1998/demos98.shtml

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Redmike
[/i]I'd settle for the monarch remaining in place, with no constitutional powers, on a salary (say, the same as senior civil servant).

Their houses and estates would become public property (maybe they could keep a small one).

I'm not aware of any such survey, but you'd find it would vary a lot by location - in the south of England, you'd get more ...[text shortened]... much to say about social cohesion etc. though. http://www.mori.com/polls/1998/demos98.shtml[/b]
Fair proposal.

I think they should be there for unity purposes
and the usefulness they may have as tourist
attractions.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Seitse
Fair proposal.

I think they should be there for unity purposes
and the usefulness they may have as tourist
attractions.
OK. As I said, my ideal solution would be to completely abolish them, but I realise that there are more important things to deal with.

I don't agree they provide any sort of unity - indeed sometimes they are very divisive, such as in the north of Ireland.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Redmike
OK. As I said, my ideal solution would be to completely abolish them, but I realise that there are more important things to deal with.

I don't agree they provide any sort of unity - indeed sometimes they are very divisive, such as in the north of Ireland.
Not taking into account Ireland and Scotland I forgot
to say, of course, since monarchic England has acted as
a colonialist monarchy, obviously, and such offends the
invaded.

Perhaps I should have had started by narrowing my assertion
to [i]symbol of unity for the English[i].

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Seitse
Not taking into account Ireland and Scotland I forgot
to say, of course, since monarchic England has acted as
a colonialist monarchy, obviously, and such offends the
invaded.

Perhaps I should have had started by narrowing my assertion
to [i]symbol of unity for the English[i].
OK - I can't speak for the English, and wouldn't want to.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Redmike
OK - I can't speak for the English, and wouldn't want to.
I doubt you can even speak intelligible English.

Vote Up
Vote Down

I don't agree they provide any sort of unity - indeed sometimes they are very divisive, such as in the north of Ireland.[/b]
Why do you think they are divisive?

also how come you scots dont want to be part of the union any more?

in response to one of the earliest questions (i went to bed shortly after i posted this thread), i read in the newspaper a few months ago that an author had done a study about the monarchy and their net profit for the UK was around £40m. unfortunately i dont have any references.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by davidtravelling
Why do you think they are divisive?

also how come you scots dont want to be part of the union any more?

in response to one of the earliest questions (i went to bed shortly after i posted this thread), i read in the newspaper a few months ago that an author had done a study about the monarchy and their net profit for the UK was around £40m. unfortunately i dont have any references.
The most obvious example of them being divisive is where one 'side' in the north of Ireland uses them as a symbol of britishness.

Only some of us don't want to be part of the union - we'll see exactly how many at the elections in May 2007.

I think this idea that the royals generate more income than they cost is dubious. It assumes that a large part of the UK's tourist income would cease if the royals weren't around, but I think most would still come to see the houses, castles etc.

Vote Up
Vote Down

You cant blame them for whats happening in northern ireland, there would still be problems even if there was no monarchy, they are just a convenient pretext.

I think that people would still come and visit but it would lose some of its allure, you only have to read the posts that Americans have made on this subject to realise how appealing it is to our transatlantic cousins and therefore their tourist dollars. Also its important to keep our heritage alive and not just stuck in stone as that means things change and remain fresh for tourists (i.e. trooping the colour, changing the guard - if we just have the palaces and houses then we will lose all of that).

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Redmike
[b]
Only some of us don't want to be part of the union.
And most of us in England will welcome your departure. Trouble is that most oi your compatriots know on which side their bread is buttered and are quite happy to remain the recipents of English bounty. How are you going to persuade them to defect?

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by davidtravelling
You cant blame them for whats happening in northern ireland, there would still be problems even if there was no monarchy, they are just a convenient pretext.

I think that people would still come and visit but it would lose some of its allure, you only have to read the posts that Americans have made on this subject to realise how appealing it is t ...[text shortened]... our, changing the guard - if we just have the palaces and houses then we will lose all of that).
I'm not blaming the monarchy for what is happening in the north of Ireland. I'm just giving an example of where the monarchy is a divisive issue.

I guess we'll never know until they're gone exactly how many tourists come to the UK to see the actual royal people. I think we can happily keep the castles etc, but as I said earlier, I'd settle for a monarch without the constitutional powers and the money going round posing for tourists.

I'd don't think we should just 'keep our heritage' for its own sake. Society progresses, and things change. We used to have witch-burnings and rickets as part of our heritage.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by chrissyb
I agree with some of the comments here. keep the tradition and pomp and ceremony that is steeped in history. my personal opinion, i think that is what keeps UK different from other western countries.
But what makes you believe tradition, ceremony and history aren't equally viable in a republic? You can change the guard at Buckingham Palace for all eternity - you don't necessarily require a bedizened queen to be sitting inside it.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by davidtravelling
Why do you think they are divisive?

also how come you scots dont want to be part of the union any more?

in response to one of the earliest questions (i went to bed shortly after i posted this thread), i read in the newspaper a few months ago that an author had done a study about the monarchy and their net profit for the UK was around £40m. unfortunately i dont have any references.
The SNP was founded in 1934, and has had continuous parliamentary representation since 1967. Currently in the Scottish Parliament we have 25 MSPs.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Redmike
OK - I can't speak for the English, and wouldn't want to.
You cant speak for the Scottish either, just your own opinion, and your party line if you wish, but you do not speak for me.
Like i said in my reply to the original post, i am quite proud of our queen. In a commonwealth, there is no reason that Independence should change that.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Amaurote
But what makes you believe tradition, ceremony and history aren't equally viable in a republic? You can change the guard at Buckingham Palace for all eternity - you don't necessarily require a bedizened queen to be sitting inside it.
Put her in Ministry of Sound for a night instead.