Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What?? "Who has the power to get of the President"??? How about the frikin people you think an unelected head of state is somehow easier to be rid of?? The Queen has been occupying an empty chair for 60 years for crying out loud.
Here is the biggest benefit: we wouldn't have a archaic system of hereditary power. Thomas Paine was arguing this simple point a couple hundred years ago, but here we still are. How about electing a head of state? That would be nice. How about equality, democracy, an clearly defined job description that we could hold to account. How about not spending hundreds of millions keeping one family privileged above all others. How about a head of state that could really keep the government in check and visa versa (like every other republic).
It's funny; you here a lot of not wanting a president Cameron or Blair, but the truth is that they are far more powerful at home than even the US President is in the US. Go figure..
The Royal family does NOT have the power of a President or Prime Minister though does it? In fact lets be honest the modern Royal family doesn't have any real power whatsoever! How many times do we have to make the point - the British people LIKE the Royal family, the Bristish people WANT the Royal family, the British people (in fact not just the British) ENJOY the Royal family, its strange me arguing the point so strongly really because believe it or not I am not somebody that has a lot of interest in them but if people (and not always British people) like and enjoy waiting on the side of a road with a flag waiting to wave at a Royal procession then good for them, there were hundreds of thousands of people that had street parties for the last Jubilee - what is wrong with that? As to the point somebody made about Britain becoming even more 'Americanised'......well there is a good reason right there for keeping the Monarchy!! :-)
The Royal family does NOT have the power of a President or Prime Minister though does it? In fact lets be honest the modern Royal family doesn't have any real power whatsoever! How many times do we have to make the point - the British people LIKE the Royal family, the Bristish people WANT the Royal family, the British people (in fact not just the British) ENJOY the Royal family, its strange me arguing the point so strongly really because believe it or not I am not somebody that has a lot of interest in them but if people (and not always British people) like and enjoy waiting on the side of a road with a flag waiting to wave at a Royal procession then good for them, there were hundreds of thousands of people that had street parties for the last Jubilee - what is wrong with that? As to the point somebody made about Britain becoming even more 'Americanised'......well there is a good reason right there for keeping the Monarchy!! :-)
If it were becoming "Americanized" you would use a "z" . Easthome, it isn't about America; this point keeps being made too. Most countries ate republics so why the talk of the US? Forget the country itself and focus on the system.
Now, you keep saying "what harm does it do"? "Most people want it so just leave it"? "They don't have any real power, so why bother"? Right? Wrong. While the monarch herself has little power, except on rare occasions when she can influence who gets to be Prime Minister, the institution of the monarchy is the source of all power in the land. The Crown is what gives parliament and government its power, the monarch hands most of her personal powers directly to the prime minister, or allows ministers to exercise her powers through the Privy Council.
So the problem isn't the power of the monarch, it is the role of the monarchy in giving unchecked power to the central government.
It does do harm, it harms Britain's democracy, it harms its society and it gets in the way of genuine reform.
This argument also assumes that 'the people want it'. It is questionable how many people really support the monarchy. Opinion polls are inconclusive until a full and informative debate has taken place. The monarchy spends millions of pounds on publicity and PR, the government too backs the monarchy and shields it from genuine scutiny. They all work hard to perpetuate the myth that the monarchy is little more than a nice family living in a big house doing their 'duty' for their country. The truth is a little different.
So, if we had a full and informative debate we would all get to hear about the way the Crown ensures the central government and bureaucracy has enormous unchecked power. We would hear about the way government ministers can use the Privy Council to bypass parliament. We would hear how undemocratic our constitution is and how unaccountable the monarchy is. We would also hear that the Queen does have a practical, albeit limited, role to play in the constitution, despite being completely unaccountable to the people or parliament.
There are lots of reasons why the monarchy does this country harm. I believe the polls will begin to look quite different once a full and open debate takes off.
If it were becoming "Americanized" you would use a "z" . Easthome, it isn't about America; this point keeps being made too. Most countries ate republics so why the talk of the US? Forget the country itself and focus on the system.
Now, you keep saying "what harm does it do"? "Most people want it so just leave it"? "They don't have any real power, so why bother"? Right? Wrong. While the monarch herself has little power, except on rare occasions when she can influence who gets to be Prime Minister, the institution of the monarchy is the source of all power in the land. The Crown is what gives parliament and government its power, the monarch hands most of her personal powers directly to the prime minister, or allows ministers to exercise her powers through the Privy Council.
So the problem isn't the power of the monarch, it is the role of the monarchy in giving unchecked power to the central government.
It does do harm, it harms Britain's democracy, it harms its society and it gets in the way of genuine reform.
This argument also assumes that 'the people want it'. It is questionable how many people really support the monarchy. Opinion polls are inconclusive until a full and informative debate has taken place. The monarchy spends millions of pounds on publicity and PR, the government too backs the monarchy and shields it from genuine scutiny. They all work hard to perpetuate the myth that the monarchy is little more than a nice family living in a big house doing their 'duty' for their country. The truth is a little different.
So, if we had a full and informative debate we would all get to hear about the way the Crown ensures the central government and bureaucracy has enormous unchecked power. We would hear about the way government ministers can use the Privy Council to bypass parliament. We would hear how undemocratic our constitution is and how unaccountable the monarchy is. We would also hear that the Queen does have a practical, albeit limited, role to play in the constitution, despite being completely unaccountable to the people or parliament.
There are lots of reasons why the monarchy does this country harm. I believe the polls will begin to look quite different once a full and open debate takes off.
Rare! I don't think it has (or ever will) happen! Please can you tell me in what way exactly the Royal family 'harms Britains democracy'? I don't think that the Queen or Camilla have had any impact on my life, I don't think my tax rate or when my recycle bins are emptied have anything to do with them? You also state that there are 'lots of reasons why the Monarchy does this country harm' - please can you elaborate?
The royals are fascinating and ridiculous. The rise and fall of Princess Diana was incredibly fascinating. The frumpy Queen boating up and down the Thames with her goofy relatives in uniform to mark the Diamond Jubilee was hilariously ridiculous.
Maybe it's this dichotomy that polarizes people.
Goofy? I think you should look at your own country before you run ours down.
The Royal family does NOT have the power of a President or Prime Minister though does it? In fact lets be honest the modern Royal family doesn't have any real power whatsoever! How many times do we have to make the point - the British people LIKE the Royal family, the Bristish people WANT the Royal family, the British people (in fact not just the British) ENJOY the Royal family, its strange me arguing the point so strongly really because believe it or not I am not somebody that has a lot of interest in them but if people (and not always British people) like and enjoy waiting on the side of a road with a flag waiting to wave at a Royal procession then good for them, there were hundreds of thousands of people that had street parties for the last Jubilee - what is wrong with that? As to the point somebody made about Britain becoming even more 'Americanised'......well there is a good reason right there for keeping the Monarchy!! :-)
The British people want and like the royal family..back up your claims
Rare! I don't think it has (or ever will) happen! Please can you tell me in what way exactly the Royal family 'harms Britains democracy'? I don't think that the Queen or Camilla have had any impact on my life, I don't think my tax rate or when my recycle bins are emptied have anything to do with them? You also state that there are 'lots of reasons why the Monarchy does this country harm' - please can you elaborate?
If you need me to explain how your taxes support the monarch, or how there is nothing democratic about a hereditary head of state, you're a lost cause.
I'm in Canada and opinions are divided here. Abolishing our monarchy would be a ridiculous task, harder than amending our constitution, in which two recent attempts were made but failed.
Both Canada and Australia have a certain problem in our monarchies, a kind of "design fault". Our Governors General have all the powers needed to do everything the Queen does, including firing and replacing the PM if necessary, and dissolving parliament....and yet it is the PM who selects this very person ("advises the Queen") for this very position, the Queen then rubber stamps it.
It's nuts I tell ya, nuts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you think an unelected head of state is somehow easier to be rid of?? The Queen has been occupying an empty chair for 60 years for crying out loud.
. Easthome, it isn't about America; this point keeps being made too. Most countries ate republics so why the talk of the US? Forget the country itself and focus on the system.
