Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > United Kingdom
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 03-15-2009, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Scotland
183 posts, read 395,177 times
Reputation: 82

Advertisements

It is true that The Royals don't act like Robert Mugabe. But there is no denying they are out of touch with the normal people of Britain. In a country where pensioners struggle to survive, people losing their homes & jobs, the NHS in a mess, I just think that the money that the Royals squander could be alot better spent.

Other cultures imposing their beliefs on us is a whole different argument. That is down to politicians who see fit to let the people that hate us into the country and then claim benefits from the same country they hate!

Myself and other people not wanting a monarchy is not the cause of this. Are you now saying that people from the UK should not speak out if they feel the monarchy is outdated?

Maybe my viewpoint is different. I am Scottish, and in general I don't think the Scots are as concerned about the survival of the monarchy. We have our own strong identity here which is known worldwide. I honestly don't think the Royals do much to enhance any identity of Britain.

We have Prince Edward. Failed marine, failed businessman, failed TV producer who went in a huff when no one liked his "Royal Its a Knockout" gameshow. And his huff was aired on TV.

Prince Charles. Great crusading environmental warrior. We must save the planet. The same guy who has a fleet of Range Rovers and Aston Martins. (Not exactly green cars).

Prince Harry. Been caught out on numerous occasions stumbling out of nightclubs, fighting with photographers, and various antics including dressing up as a nazi at a fancy dress do. All no doubt accompanied by many police bodyguards, paid for by us.

Prince William. Landed his military helicopter at his girlfriends house. How much did that cost us?

Prince Andrew. Supposedly an ambassador for British business abroad? What's he ever done? When was the last time we heard of him doing anything? After the Lockerbie disaster he visited and more or less exclaimed to everyone that there was a big hole in the ground! (Yes Andrew, we know).

Prince Philip. Famous for his gaffes. Asking a Scottish driving instructor, how he kept the natives off the drink long enough to teach them. Comments to a British student in China he shouldn't stay too long or he would get "slitty eyes", amongst many others.

If that's our British identity maybe we'd be better off without it!

(Rant over)

 
Old 03-15-2009, 02:00 PM
 
102 posts, read 253,140 times
Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tartanlad View Post
Are you now saying that people from the UK should not speak out if they feel the monarchy is outdated?
I'm saying that the people that do can't exactly moan next time the police tell us to take flags down on St.George's day....(or St.Andrew's) for fear of offending foreigners. And yes it is mostly down to people talking like this and not being bothered - the politicians are elected, we're letting them do all this. It's not the only thing that makes us British, no, but in my opinion it is a fundamental part. We could all give more money to charity and go without ourselves but lets face it most of us don't and if most of us won the lottery a relatively small amount would go to charity so I don't think it's fair to point the finger. Obama could probably do with less space for his family than the White House but he doesn't. This happens all over the world and if we had a republic then our head of state would probably be allowed to be just as indulgent.

Perhaps the only thing I do agree with is that if you don't support the monarchy you shouldn't have to give your share of taxes for them, but then you're talking taxes and democracy and I think that's a whole 'nother debate!
 
Old 03-15-2009, 03:25 PM
 
Location: The Silver State (from the UK)
4,664 posts, read 8,222,470 times
Reputation: 2862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brit2009 View Post
I'm saying that the people that do can't exactly moan next time the police tell us to take flags down on St.George's day....(or St.Andrew's) for fear of offending foreigners. And yes it is mostly down to people talking like this and not being bothered - the politicians are elected, we're letting them do all this. It's not the only thing that makes us British, no, but in my opinion it is a fundamental part. We could all give more money to charity and go without ourselves but lets face it most of us don't and if most of us won the lottery a relatively small amount would go to charity so I don't think it's fair to point the finger. Obama could probably do with less space for his family than the White House but he doesn't. This happens all over the world and if we had a republic then our head of state would probably be allowed to be just as indulgent.

Perhaps the only thing I do agree with is that if you don't support the monarchy you shouldn't have to give your share of taxes for them, but then you're talking taxes and democracy and I think that's a whole 'nother debate!
The royals are a very important part of our history, and we shouln't forget it. But that is not a reason to keep them around now. Obama may live in the white house but he is thei elected president. Any salary changes etc would need to be approved by congress. That should also be the ultimate power here.

You can't compare elected officials to a hereditary system of wealth. The royals have absolutely zero credentials or qualification to power apart from being born of the royal womb. its unprogressive, unethical, immoral, and makes little sense.
 
Old 03-15-2009, 03:44 PM
 
Location: The Shires
2,266 posts, read 2,281,017 times
Reputation: 1050
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian6479 View Post
The royals are a very important part of our history, and we shouln't forget it. But that is not a reason to keep them around now. Obama may live in the white house but he is thei elected president. Any salary changes etc would need to be approved by congress. That should also be the ultimate power here.

You can't compare elected officials to a hereditary system of wealth. The royals have absolutely zero credentials or qualification to power apart from being born of the royal womb. its unprogressive, unethical, immoral, and makes little sense.
It's fine to preserve Britain's history. None of us republicans are suggesting bulldozing Buckingham Palace, or any of the beautiful crown estates.

Ultimately though, it's up to the people. I hope that if the popularity of the Monarchy ever dips below 50% for a prolonged period, there is a proper referendum on the issue to allow the people of Britain themselves to decide on the future. I believe this happened in Australia, but they rejected the republic (very narrowly).

While many feel that the Monarchy brings in tourists, I disagree. In fact, some might argue that the UK is a bit of a laughing stock because of its outdated hereditary system, in which citizens are still called "subjects". I don't want to be called a "subject" and I will not bow down for anyone, just because they were born into wealth & power.

People say they are afraid of a President Gordon Brown -- well if Gordon Brown were running for President, don't vote for him! You'd probably have at least 3 other alternatives to vote for + a couple of independents who may not be affiliated with any political party. I believe the London Mayoral elections were a big success....I liked Ken Livingstone and I even like Boris Johnson (both elected Mayors have done well for London's cause, IMO). It just goes to show that the election of an individual "head" can also work in the UK, so I'm sure a presidential system would work just fine too.

Personally, I'm all for an elected head of state. It's the right way to go and most importantly of all, it's democratic.
 
Old 03-15-2009, 03:48 PM
 
Location: The Silver State (from the UK)
4,664 posts, read 8,222,470 times
Reputation: 2862
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCreass View Post
It's fine to preserve Britain's history. None of us republicans are suggesting bulldozing Buckingham Palace, or any of the beautiful crown estates.

Ultimately though, it's up to the people. I hope that if the popularity of the Monarchy ever dips below 50% for a prolonged period, there is a proper referendum on the issue to allow the people of Britain themselves to decide on the future. I believe this happened in Australia, but they rejected the republic (very narrowly).

While many feel that the Monarchy brings in tourists, I disagree. In fact, some might argue that the UK is a bit of a laughing stock because of its outdated hereditary system, in which citizens are still called "subjects". I don't want to be called a "subject" and I will not bow down for anyone, just because they were born into wealth & power.

People say they are afraid of a President Gordon Brown -- well if Gordon Brown were running for President, don't vote for him! You'd probably have at least 3 other alternatives to vote for + a couple of independents who may not be affiliated with any political party. I believe the London Mayoral elections were a big success....I liked Ken Livingstone and I even like Boris Johnson (both elected Mayors have done well for London's cause, IMO).

Personally, I'm all for an elected head of state. It's the right way to go and most importantly of all, it's democratic.

Agree completely.
 
Old 03-27-2009, 05:08 PM
 
Location: On a Long Island in NY
7,801 posts, read 10,067,565 times
Reputation: 7366
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCreass View Post
It's fine to preserve Britain's history. None of us republicans are suggesting bulldozing Buckingham Palace, or any of the beautiful crown estates.

Ultimately though, it's up to the people. I hope that if the popularity of the Monarchy ever dips below 50% for a prolonged period, there is a proper referendum on the issue to allow the people of Britain themselves to decide on the future. I believe this happened in Australia, but they rejected the republic (very narrowly).

While many feel that the Monarchy brings in tourists, I disagree. In fact, some might argue that the UK is a bit of a laughing stock because of its outdated hereditary system, in which citizens are still called "subjects". I don't want to be called a "subject" and I will not bow down for anyone, just because they were born into wealth & power.

People say they are afraid of a President Gordon Brown -- well if Gordon Brown were running for President, don't vote for him! You'd probably have at least 3 other alternatives to vote for + a couple of independents who may not be affiliated with any political party. I believe the London Mayoral elections were a big success....I liked Ken Livingstone and I even like Boris Johnson (both elected Mayors have done well for London's cause, IMO). It just goes to show that the election of an individual "head" can also work in the UK, so I'm sure a presidential system would work just fine too.

Personally, I'm all for an elected head of state. It's the right way to go and most importantly of all, it's democratic.
At last count there were 195 nations; 44 of them are monarchies (16 of them Commonwealth realms). HOWEVER, there are many countries (ex. France) where the President is effectively an elected monarch.

How many of those 195 are true democracies? Maybe only about 50 + the constitutional monarchy nations.
 
Old 03-27-2009, 06:16 PM
 
Location: The Silver State (from the UK)
4,664 posts, read 8,222,470 times
Reputation: 2862
Quote:
Originally Posted by WIHS2006 View Post
At last count there were 195 nations; 44 of them are monarchies (16 of them Commonwealth realms). HOWEVER, there are many countries (ex. France) where the President is effectively an elected monarch.

How many of those 195 are true democracies? Maybe only about 50 + the constitutional monarchy nations.
I don't really see a point. If the president of France is elected, then at least he is elected right?
 
Old 03-27-2009, 09:47 PM
 
Location: The Shires
2,266 posts, read 2,281,017 times
Reputation: 1050
Quote:
Originally Posted by WIHS2006 View Post
At last count there were 195 nations; 44 of them are monarchies (16 of them Commonwealth realms). HOWEVER, there are many countries (ex. France) where the President is effectively an elected monarch.

How many of those 195 are true democracies? Maybe only about 50 + the constitutional monarchy nations.
My friend, a so-called "elected monarch" is better than an unelected one, in my opinion.
 
Old 03-28-2009, 05:06 AM
 
Location: Portsmouth
163 posts, read 319,942 times
Reputation: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCreass View Post
My friend, a so-called "elected monarch" is better than an unelected one, in my opinion.
Wrong
 
Old 03-28-2009, 05:29 AM
 
2,421 posts, read 6,941,920 times
Reputation: 3861
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCreass View Post
It's fine to preserve Britain's history. None of us republicans are suggesting bulldozing Buckingham Palace, or any of the beautiful crown estates.

Ultimately though, it's up to the people. I hope that if the popularity of the Monarchy ever dips below 50% for a prolonged period, there is a proper referendum on the issue to allow the people of Britain themselves to decide on the future. I believe this happened in Australia, but they rejected the republic (very narrowly).

While many feel that the Monarchy brings in tourists, I disagree. In fact, some might argue that the UK is a bit of a laughing stock because of its outdated hereditary system, in which citizens are still called "subjects". I don't want to be called a "subject" and I will not bow down for anyone, just because they were born into wealth & power.

People say they are afraid of a President Gordon Brown -- well if Gordon Brown were running for President, don't vote for him! You'd probably have at least 3 other alternatives to vote for + a couple of independents who may not be affiliated with any political party. I believe the London Mayoral elections were a big success....I liked Ken Livingstone and I even like Boris Johnson (both elected Mayors have done well for London's cause, IMO). It just goes to show that the election of an individual "head" can also work in the UK, so I'm sure a presidential system would work just fine too.

Personally, I'm all for an elected head of state. It's the right way to go and most importantly of all, it's democratic.

...And an Australian republic probably would have gone ahead? If it wasn't for the misinformation and scaremongering that was being thrown around during the 1999 referendum. Though admittedly some people did have a point. As The republic model we were offered wasn't the best. Nor was it never made clear, what changes would take place and how they would be handled?
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > United Kingdom
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top