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.
"For all men being originally equal, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve some decent degree of honour of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inheret them".
Thomas Paine 1776
With all of the countless PR agents ensuring that the British public see the Monarchy in a positive light, is it not time that we abolish the archaic system of hereditary monarchy? Paine was arguing this point (which was accepted and enforced during the American revolution) in 1776, and yet here we are 200 years later in Britain, approving a royal family in direct contradiction to our democratic principles and values.
I think you should keep them but make them pay taxes like anyone else. They have alot of personal fortune they could and should be living off of.
As long as they are a tourist draw to your company, use that but honestly considering the conditions that some live in, its a disgusting thing to see the degree of wealth these people live with and have to pay NO taxes and get money from the civil list as well.
Absolutely not. The Monarchy is an outdated, archaic,anachronistic, undemocratic system .
No modern democracy can ever be called such when inherited privilege, rank and titles are bestowed upon people who have not been been voted in.
The Monarch also has far more potential powers than most people think, they are a waste of money and quite frankly an intellectual effrontery and an assault on democratic values.
I have nothing against the Queen as a person, IMO she has done a "good job" as far as her job description goes and I really have no quarrel with individuals in the Royal Family per se. She has worked very hard all her life at an incredibly boring job I would not want.
The principle however is morally repugnant, a political aberration and something which any fair minded individual would see as such.
I am astonished at the reverence and obsequiousness exhibited by many people towards people who are no better or no worse than themselves.
We need a meritocracy where individuals are judged on their skills, ability and judgement as well as their hard work not on whose ancestor won a battle a thousand years previously.
I find it shocking that MPs elected lawfully by their constituents, to represent them cannot be sworn in the House of Commons until they swear allegiance to the Queen. What is democratic about this system?
What kind of Democracy does not allow people to be Republicans openly. We then end up with the farce and games that MPs like Denis Skinner having to cross his fingers behind his back in Parliament ! Very mature way of treating a serious issue. Forcing Politicians to lie . As if they need even more excuses.
Until very recently being a Republican was an act of National Treason which is amazing.
I am a member of Republic and hope that one day soon the people of Britain will actually be able to elect their head of State as befits citizens of a Democratic Nation. Republic | The Campaign for an Elected Head of State
Britain has much to offer and does not need the antics of the royal soap opera to attract visitors as royalists imply. We should be proud and confident enough of our Nation to feel we can stand up on our own two feet like grown-ups without the props of some bizarre ancient institution so remote from normal individuals it boggles the mind.
I actually feel sorry for the Royal Family despite their gilded cage, they are still prisoners of ancient rituals and precepts which have screwed them up so badly none of them are able to have a normal life.
Nobody should look up to people because of their birth but because of their lives. Nobody is born superior or better, more worthy of respect or deference. We are all human beings, go to the toilet, bleed the same , and all deserve to be treated with equal respect and rights. No more no less than the next person.
I would like to see a modicum of social justice and a good start would be by getting rid of this antiquated unjust system of governance.
At least a referendum would be a start. If British people really want to keep the monarchy, fair enough, but give them a chance to express themselves on the subject.
"For all men being originally equal, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and though himself might deserve some decent degree of honour of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inheret them".
Thomas Paine 1776
With all of the countless PR agents ensuring that the British public see the Monarchy in a positive light, is it not time that we abolish the archaic system of hereditary monarchy? Paine was arguing this point (which was accepted and enforced during the American revolution) in 1776, and yet here we are 200 years later in Britain, approving a royal family in direct contradiction to our democratic principles and values.
Should we carry on supporting the royals?
`Contradiction to our democratic principles` In 1776 I don`t doubt it was. In 2008?? How can something that has over the years been turned into a tourist attraction be considered to have the same debasing powers?
I am a dyed in the wool socialist [well, on the pink side anyway ] but certainly not of the rabid with envy kind. I recently watched a behind the scenes series on Her Madge and the gang. I was amazed! The amount they actually do in raising profiles behind the scenes was an education. It didn`t change my mind to any great extent but it did put me firmly on the side of those that have always said The Family brings more to the table than it takes away. I believe the country would be a sadder, and certainly duller , place witout them....
I can completely see where Mooseketeer is coming from, but I also have a fondness for the Royal Family for no logical reason - it's just a gut feeling. Maybe it stems from primary school and waving flags at Princess Diana.
I have a lot of respect for [most of] them as individuals and the work they try to do and also feel sorry for them as they're born into a nightmare of a life. If they were blatantly stupid or destructive then I would have a problem with them, but they're not - the queen in particular appears to be very intelligent and sensible.
Equally I worry about electoral processes, in that these people think so highly of themselves that they actually think they are capable of ruling a country. What sort of an ego do you have to have to put yourself forward as the best person to be in charge of your country? Does such an ego make you a good person to do that job? Are you going to listen to anyone else's point of view and maybe change your mind if you're proved wrong? And even then we elect one party because they say they will do X, then they turn around and do Y, we all know that.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying democracy is bad, on the contrary it's fantastic in theory, I'm just saying that I don't think there is a flawless system.
I don't know what the best way is, but I personally would be sad if the monarchy were disposed of, for reasons I can't really explain very well.
I can completely see where Mooseketeer is coming from, but I also have a fondness for the Royal Family for no logical reason - it's just a gut feeling. Maybe it stems from primary school and waving flags at Princess Diana.
I have a lot of respect for [most of] them as individuals and the work they try to do and also feel sorry for them as they're born into a nightmare of a life. If they were blatantly stupid or destructive then I would have a problem with them, but they're not - the queen in particular appears to be very intelligent and sensible.
Equally I worry about electoral processes, in that these people think so highly of themselves that they actually think they are capable of ruling a country. What sort of an ego do you have to have to put yourself forward as the best person to be in charge of your country? Does such an ego make you a good person to do that job? Are you going to listen to anyone else's point of view and maybe change your mind if you're proved wrong? And even then we elect one party because they say they will do X, then they turn around and do Y, we all know that.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying democracy is bad, on the contrary it's fantastic in theory, I'm just saying that I don't think there is a flawless system.
I don't know what the best way is, but I personally would be sad if the monarchy were disposed of, for reasons I can't really explain very well.
I do understand what you are saying, and I don't have an issue with them personally, or do I dislike the Queen. But the royal family extends far beyond the Queen's immediate family.
IMO the monarchy should be abolished after the Queen. William, Harry etc seem to have adapted into modern society pretty well and are living the life of millionair bachelor's.. by all means let them continue, but not with tax money, or the power to manage or disolve a democratically elected government.
The most common argument is that they support tourism etc but I would argue that tourist numbers into Heathrow would not fall if we didn't have a Queen, and that it is morally repugnent for taxes to support a family, even if they did boost our tourist trade.
Whilst I understand that they have formed an important part of Britain's history, that history will always be there, and should be maintained and respected, but it is time to move forward and see the Monarchy for what it really is... an expensive extension of celebrity.
Interesting points but maybe time to dispel myths and get down to hard facts and figures..
Since the reign of George III [1760] the present form of the Civil List has been in operation. It came about when Crown land revenues in the form of rents etc were handed over to Parliament [the people]. What can be termed a `flat rate` would then be paid to the monarch for upkeep in return. ONLY the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh benefit from the list.
In 2005/6 the civil list payment was £11.2M. Against that was revenue from Crown lands to the treasury of £190.8M. A pretty good deal for the country methinks. So if we can`t get rid of it on the grounds of cost lets try a constitutional approach.
Quote,,``IMO the monarchy should be abolished after the Queen. William, Harry etc seem to have adapted into modern society pretty well and are living the life of millionair bachelor's.. by all means let them continue, but not with tax money, or the power to manage or disolve a democratically elected government.``
True in theory the power is there and in my opinion should be as a safeguard against a lunatic government getting power crazy. Or should that be MORE power crazy .. The last time it was invoked was I think in 1818 and we must surely all agree things have moved on a little since then,,,,
Interesting points but maybe time to dispel myths and get down to hard facts and figures..
Since the reign of George III [1760] the present form of the Civil List has been in operation. It came about when Crown land revenues in the form of rents etc were handed over to Parliament [the people]. What can be termed a `flat rate` would then be paid to the monarch for upkeep in return. ONLY the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh benefit from the list.
In 2005/6 the civil list payment was £11.2M. Against that was revenue from Crown lands to the treasury of £190.8M. A pretty good deal for the country methinks. So if we can`t get rid of it on the grounds of cost lets try a constitutional approach.
Quote,,``IMO the monarchy should be abolished after the Queen. William, Harry etc seem to have adapted into modern society pretty well and are living the life of millionair bachelor's.. by all means let them continue, but not with tax money, or the power to manage or disolve a democratically elected government.``
True in theory the power is there and in my opinion should be as a safeguard against a lunatic government getting power crazy. Or should that be MORE power crazy .. The last time it was invoked was I think in 1818 and we must surely all agree things have moved on a little since then,,,,
Firstly, the opportunity cost to the country for holding crown estate as private residence and not for public enjoyment/tourism is massive.
Secondly, the taxpayer pays a direct tax to fund security, to fund the royal palaces, travel, pensions, staff, and security. This is estimated at £47m in 2006 directly to the taxpayer.
Whilst it can be argued the the profit from the crown estate is credited to the treasury, this is a profit that would exist regardless of an occupying monarchy or not.
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.
] but certainly not of the rabid with envy kind. I recently watched a behind the scenes series on Her Madge and the gang. I was amazed! The amount they actually do in raising profiles behind the scenes was an education. It didn`t change my mind to any great extent but it did put me firmly on the side of those that have always said The Family brings more to the table than it takes away. I believe the country would be a sadder, and certainly duller , place witout them....
.. The last time it was invoked was I think in 1818 and we must surely all agree things have moved on a little since then,,,,
