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.
...Having a royal family contributes to an ignorance within British society that allows some people to be given status, wealth, power and credibility without any prerequisite other than being born through the appropriate womb. That is dangerous, regressive and intellectually embarassing....
That's not strictly a royal family phenomenon. Paris Hilton comes to mind.
It boils down to whether you want to elect your head of state, or preserve a figurehead and a bloodline going back centuries.
I used to be a very staunch republican to say the least, now I find myself undecided, partly because of my desire for Britain itself not to Americanise itself even further.
I do not want a head of state the same as the US presidency. It causes the ills and successes of the nation to be placed on one man or woman's shoulders.
In a sense, you could argue that the British and commonwealth nations do have a choice anyway. If the majority of British people decided that the monarchy needed to go, the monarchy would be phased out, diplomatically and carefully, with no revolution or bloodshed needed.
You have to look at the cost/benefit. What would we really gain from the change and what would we lose? They have no power anyway and I wouldn't want an elected head of state with power and selfish interests replacing them, to be honest, unless we could say have a similar system to the Irish system. I would rather have the government made accountable for their decisions, not an individual.
Its really not about cost/benefit for me. I would argue that the monarch costs the taxpayer a fortune, whilst the opportunity cost to the public of not owning the crown estate is massive at the same time. However, its more about morals and ethics than anything else.
Done no end of good? How? What has anyone in the royal family (the biggest welfare recipients anywhere on earth) done for anyone? If you believe that the UK should 'bypass' Charles then you do not support a hereditary system of power. We cannot simply disguard the parts of the system that we do not like - either we have a hereditary system of head of state or we don't.
The fact that we have a 'royal family' is a slap in the face to common sense. If we need a head of state to watch over the government then lets elect one. if they don't really use any power then lets get rid of them. A president would also come with baggage, lies or anything else that comes with being a politician but at least they have been elected.
Having a royal family contributes to an ignorance within British society that allows some people to be given status, wealth, power and credibility without any prerequisite other than being born through the appropriate womb. That is dangerous, regressive and intellectually embarassing. I find support to the monarch some of the most archaic and intellectully bankrupt opinions I've ever come accross.
I'm sure that a lot of people in Canada (and other commonwealth countries) couldn't care that much because it doesn't really mean anything to them either way, but I would love to see them elect to become republics out of pure principle.
Ian, come on. How many people are born into FAR more privilege here in the US...a lot. Look at the Kardashians, Paris Hilton. These people have far more advantages than say Prince William or Prince Harry who do actually work.
So what that I'll never be king or queen. They have no power and no real impact on my daily life.
As for the financial implications, a president would cost money too, as would the additional elections, their security and the security of their immediate family.
I do have some republican tendencies, but I see the argument from both sides. I just don't think it'd make a great deal of difference to our daily lives unless the will of the British people sways in the other direction, forcing a referendum on the issue.
What I would NOT want is a US-style republic of Britain. I would still prefer the president to be more of a figurehead and a statesman than someone with too much power. Perhaps the president would be responsible for foreign policy and commander in chief of the military, while the prime minister handles domestic affairs and continues to be party leader?
Its really not about cost/benefit for me. I would argue that the monarch costs the taxpayer a fortune, whilst the opportunity cost to the public of not owning the crown estate is massive at the same time. However, its more about morals and ethics than anything else.
Ah, you win. The republican in me has just been suppressed for so long living in the US and not wanting Britain to become like the US. I want to vote for my head of state, but I still don't want them to have the same powers that the American president has.
Long live the URB! We can open all their estates to the public and make a ton of money, just like the French do with the Palace Of Versailles.
Ah, you win. The republican in me has just been suppressed for so long living in the US and not wanting Britain to become like the US. I want to vote for my head of state, but I still don't want them to have the same powers that the American president has.
Long live the URB! We can open all their estates to the public and make a ton of money, just like the French do with the Palace Of Versailles.
Thats a really good point about France. It is the most visited country in the world - and yet they are a republic. Versailles still attracts millions of tourists every year (a lot more than Windsor castle). I read your posts above and I understand your comments about the US political system. They are fair comments (and given the Supreme Court's ruling on super pack funding the system is only getting worse) but I'm not advocating that Britain would become exactly like the US. Britain is a lot smaller and simpler in political complexity, it has a far bigger welfare state, and socialised social systems are woven into its culture more than the US.
On the other hand, you fear the power the POTUS has, but in reality he is far more restrained domestically than the PM in the UK. David Cameron could have had that healthcare bill written and signed off within 3 months if he wanted rather than the 18 months it took Obama. The checks and balances in the US constitution are actually stronger than the monarch in the UK (look at what is happening in Wisconsin where people are actually going to recall the governor whom they feel as overstepped his mandate).
The UK government informs the Queen what they will be focusing on in the coming year, which she then reads back to them - go figure? And then the PM does whatever they want regardless of what the Queen may think. Where was she when Tony Blair went to war with Iraq over false information and false documentation?
You also commented on funding a president. We already pay for a PM, MPs, and the monarch - why not replace the monarch with a president? The French PM is actually cheaper for the french tax payer than the Queen is for the British tax payer.
I used to live in Windsor and have been around the royals many times, and each time it would boggle my mind as to who these people actually were given the power granted to them (potentially) and the wealth and worship bestowed on them by the tax payer. I even met a woman who told me that she had spent 25 years as Princess Margaret's secretary - she lived in a house within Windsor great park (which would cost you or I millions, but they are all reserved for Crown Estate 'workers') and told me how disgusted she was at the British welfare system!!! When I asked he what she had actually contributed to society she looked at me like I was from another planet!! The answer was nothing - neither her or Princess Margaret created jobs, worked on innovation, contributed literature, medical research bla bla bla. They just take up valuable resources - resources that should be used more effectively elsewhere.
I don't agree with your comment about Paris Hilton - that is not the same thing as a monarch. I do agree that there is a lot of wealth passed on, and I think that should be heavily taxed in order to prevent aristocracies or entitlement mentalities. But thats for another thread...
Ian, you still havent answered my question: what is so great about us (the US) being a republic?
For the people, by the people is a crock of **** made up to make kindergarten students feel like they can actually play a role in the system.
Its that you vote. For the people, by the people is in reality actually more 'of, by and for the corporation' I know. But, as much as a president spends on a campaign (as much as $800m this year) they can still only walk into office if people vote for them. That is surely better than having power through bloodline alone. Any complaint with this system can equally be directed at a constitutional monarch.
I know there are problems with corruption, career politics, superpack funding etc - these are issues within a democracy itself. Winston Churchill said "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest". Its not great, but what is the alternative?
Like him or not, the current President was born as an average Joe in Hawaii and is a product of the United States - that is not possible in the UK. Johann Hari said in the Independent "“The American head of state grew up with a mother on food stamps. The British head of state grew up with a mother on postage stamps. Is that a contrast that fills you with pride?”
At the end of the day, its not an argument about whether or not the US system is better. Its about the fact that the British head of state is unelected, is given absolute wealth and power through bloodline alone supported through public resource, without any demand for credibility or qualification whatsoever.
You've convinced me that I want a republic again, but not based on the US. The US has just as poor levels of social mobikity as the UK, even though it doesn't have the same history of class divison. Yes, Obama didn't come from a wealthy background, but the US is a society very much based on special privileges for the wealthy and a survival of the fittest mentality. It is much harder to be poor and to escape the cycle of poverty here than it is in countries such as Sweden and the Netherlands, both of which have monarchies.
My argument for wanting a republic is more to do with having a say in who represents the country, rather than any notion that I could have been president.
Obama is an exceptionally intelligent man, too far ahead of his time for this era.
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.
