Britain: Dump the monarchy?

[PrinceOfLeigh]

And from the Wiki:

Removal and damage:
On Christmas Day 1950, a group of four Scottish students (Ian Hamilton, Gavin Vernon, Kay Matheson and Alan Stuart) took the Stone from Westminster Abbey for return to Scotland. In the process of removing it from the Abbey, they broke it into two pieces. After hiding the greater part of the stone in Kent for a few weeks, they risked the road blocks on the border and returned to Scotland with this piece, which they had hidden in the back of a borrowed car. The smaller piece was similarly brought north a little while later.

The Stone was then passed to a senior Glasgow politician who arranged for it to be professionally repaired by Glasgow stonemason Robert Gray. A major search for the stone had been ordered by the British Government, but this proved unsuccessful. Perhaps assuming that the Church would not return it to England, the stone's custodians left it on the altar of Arbroath Abbey, on April 11, 1951, in the safekeeping of the Church of Scotland. Once the London police were informed of its whereabouts, the Stone was returned to Westminster.

Afterwards, rumours circulated that copies had been made of the Stone, and that the returned Stone was not in fact the original.

It's just a rumour and even if the returned Stone was a fake, we did take the original. In any event it's just a Big Brick. I can't see any reason for us keeping it other than to wind the Celts up.

 

[ulsterman88]

The Monarchy should not be scrapped /deposed, I read somewhere that the monarchy was Britains greatest ambassador and i agree with that, also scrapping the monarchy would rip the soul out of Britains culture which is already being supressed by stupid politically correct politicians and laws .

 

[Technocactus]

I would like to see the monarchy "dumped" some point in the future. But not immediatly. I think that when Elizabeth goes, and a buffoon like Charles comes to the throne, the monarchy will no longer be looked on so kindly.

 

[Masquerouge]

Ah darn I voted British no But I don't see why you should get rid of'em. It's not as if they were oppressive or tyrans, right?

 

[cubsfan6506]

They wste millions of dollars that could go to the less fortunate.

 

[Babbler]

Name a country that has one.

France
Germany
South Korea
India
Span
Finland

... and many more.

It should be noted that Canada's Constitution is partly unwritten, like those governing the Prime Minster and the Premiers.

And the UK's (hopefuly UR!) constitution seems fine by me.

 

[Guangxi]

funny the way meaningless rhetoric, apathy and tourism is all thats keeping them on the throne. to me, anyway.

 

[Sidhe]

funny the way meaningless rhetoric, apathy and tourism is all thats keeping them on the throne. to me, anyway.

Yeah large sums of cash are like that in a democracy, people will agree to keep them if the country's coining off them. I certainly see no other reason, being hardly a royalist. If it keeps our tourist industry happy, and keeps people in jobs, I'm going to be voting to keep them.

 

[Guangxi]

Yeah large sums of cash are like that in a democracy, people will agree to keep them if the country's coining off them. I certainly see no other reason, being hardly a royalist. If it keeps our tourist industry happy, and keeps people in jobs, I'm going to be voting to keep them.

well, do these tourists actually see the queen/ or a royal family member, or just the palace?

 

[Sidhe]

well, do these tourists actually see the queen/ or a royal family member, or just the palace?

Depends if it's the changing of the guard: yes, if it's a royal wedding: yes. If it's HRH visiting x then yes. Tourists seem fascinated by our monarchy it seems, not all tourists but some. And it brings in some serious mulah.

 

[mdwh]

Monarchy in the UK is a huge tourist magnet.

This is often claimed, but I've never seen any actual evidence for it. People come for the _history_. That would still exist, so would all the buildings. I'm not sure how many people come to see a real live monarch?

By this logic, Egypt should still have its Pharoahs, because of all the tourists it would get.

Think about the tabloids too!

Another reason to be rid of them...

My main reasons against the monarchy are (a) the millions they apparentely get from the Government (correct me if I'm wrong), and (b) the idea that someone is better than everyone else because of who they were born as. The latter is more of an ideological disagreement. Drop the titles, the monarch-worshipping (things like "God save the Queen"), and the extensive coverage given to them and their views by the media.

Even if they do bring in tourists, you don't need any of that, just keep them as alledged tourist magnets.

 

[mdwh]

In fairness it really is quite cheap given the return we get. Especially when you consider that most of those costs would not simply vanish if we removed the Monarchy.

That's quite cheap is it? Where's my £37.4m a year, if it's "only" 62p per person?

Which costs would still need to be paid by the Government?

 

[mdwh]

Better a ceremonial monarch than a powerful president.

IIRC the French presidency costs more than twice as much as the British monarchy, the US Presidency is a zillion times more expensive still.

Who said anything about presidents? It doesn't have to be one or the other.

If we abolish the monarchy we still need some (one or more) people to fulfill that ceremonial duty, like teh German president. Moreover someone needs to fulfill the supreme oversight role (similar to the Supreme Court in the US) who would cost money and need election (in which case how can they avoid political bias?) or be appointed (who would you trust to appoint them?)

What's the supreme oversight role? Yes, we would need someone for the ceremonial duty - but that's a job with a normal salary, just like MPs and ambassadors. You don't need a whole family with highly expensive upkeeps.

Most people in the UK are pretty happy with the institution of the monarchy - the pressure for reform is more in respect of the House of Lords (which Tony is packing with cronies in a disgustingly undemocratic way), european law-making, local democracy and to a lesser extent proportional representation.

Source for what most people think?

As for the House of Lords, today's news suggests we'll be replacing it with an elected house.

 

[mdwh]

My point entirely about the 'special status' of the Monarchy. I've been to countless dress parties whereas people have dressed up as the faux-Hitler. The Boxing Day event in Wigan had more OBLs than I care to count.

It's only a story because a Prince of the Realm decided he was going to do it. It therefore becomes a political statement on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

When did he choose that role?

And isn't this exactly the problem?

Whenever someone tries to justify their expense, it's done so because of the "job" they do, and they should be paid like anyone else. But when they make an embarrasment, despite the fact that someone like a cabinet member - who lives on a fraction of the wealth - does something similar they usually have to resign, for the royals people make excuses like "Oh, they're only human".

Which is it - are they like the rest of us, or are they in a special privileged position? Is it really a good system to force people into such highly public positions where they might not be good at it, and they can mess up with no consequence?

 

[StarWorms]

The monarchy is part of Britishness and it is certainly worth having.

 

[sysyphus]

funny the way meaningless rhetoric, apathy and tourism is all thats keeping them on the throne. to me, anyway.

Oddly, the same can largely be said for most elected Heads of State as well.

 

[sysyphus]

Depends if it's the changing of the guard: yes, if it's a royal wedding: yes. If it's HRH visiting x then yes. Tourists seem fascinated by our monarchy it seems, not all tourists but some. And it brings in some serious mulah.

You make some good points Sidhe, but I'm still surprised that so many people come to the UK with that as a major driver. I can think of numerous more desirable reasons to visit Britain than that. Mind you, I'm coming from the perspective of a country where the royals are just a part of the routine, I guess were so used to them, even here an ocean away, and that's why I can't see why other people would make such a big deal of it.

 

[Joe Harker]

get rid of it, adpot a european type government

 

[Joe Harker]

Ah darn I voted British no But I don't see why you should get rid of'em. It's not as if they were oppressive or tyrans, right?

John I
Henry VIII
Mary I
Charles I
James II
George I,II,IV
i know they are old, but charles is a bit of a twit

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Span

Spain's head of state is the Monarchy and the roles of president and Prime Minister are vested in two seperate people.

France

The roles of president and Prime Minister are vested in two seperate people.

Germany

The roles of president and Chancellor are vested in two seperate people.

South Korea

The roles of president and Prime Minister are vested in two seperate people.

India

The roles of president and Prime Minister are vested in two seperate people.

Finland

The roles of president and Prime Minister are vested in two seperate people.

... and many more.

If you can find me a single "Prime Minister / President Combo" anywhere in the world. I'll shake your hand.