Time to get rid of the Monarchy?

[Kupe Navigator]

Scomo unrestrained for Australia. That's president Scomo to the likes of you plebs.

He isn't even PM anymore. What does he got to do with anything?

 

[Gorbles]

When was the last time UK had and authoritarian strongman type PM?

See previous comment about egos.

Your pet theory is a theory, and not evidenced fact.

I get that people may feel comforted about having someone with theoretical power over excessive overreach from government, but if that power is never exercised (except to benefit themselves), then you're not putting your comfort in something capable of actually correcting that overreach.

True but it is still a comfort blanket to think she isn't only representative of your country. At this I envy Britain. I would rather have Charles than that pig and bug of a president.

See the above. I appreciate you may feel comforted, but you aren't from the UK. I am. I haven't seen our ruling party kept in check even once, and as such, it's not really any comfort to me weighed against the actions of a government that have been in power a decade.

 

[Kyriakos]

If Charles intervened in anything, it would cause a constitutional (well, de facto; UK doesn't even have a constitution) crisis.
So in that sense, it's not viable to expect even benevolent royals to help there.

 

[Arwon]

"King Charles."

That sweet pro republican sound

Scomo unrestrained for Australia. That's president Scomo to the likes of you plebs.

I don't think anyone is seriously advocating for a presidential rather than parliamentary republic.

We're gonna be like Ireland and Germany, not the Americas.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

I just don't see what benefit does getting rid of royal family has to Britain.

 

[Gorbles]

I just don't see what benefit does getting rid of royal family has to Britain.

Abolishing the monarchy is not the same as getting rid of the family itself. They'll still exist, they'll just need to get jobs and pay taxes properly like everybody (well, nearly everybody) else.

If you don't see the point in abolishing the monarchy, I recommend you start with the link I provided to Zardnaar, above. I'll provide it again here:

Revealed: Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth

Monarch dispatched private solicitor to secure exemption from transparency law

www.theguardian.com

 

[Kyriakos]

I just don't see what benefit does getting rid of royal family has to Britain.

Symbolically, it would give the impression that you don't get a few supremely privileged people with the rest being reduced to subjects.
Of course, in practice, other economical elites play that role already, but at least they aren't guaranteed a massive salary from the state for their entire family tree.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Abolishing the monarchy is not the same as getting rid of the family itself. They'll still exist, they'll just need to get jobs and pay taxes properly like everybody (well, nearly everybody) else.

If you don't see the point in abolishing the monarchy, I recommend you start with the link I provided to Zardnaar, above. I'll provide it again here:

Revealed: Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth

Monarch dispatched private solicitor to secure exemption from transparency law

www.theguardian.com

But is pain of going through all the hassles worth it? You need to change your government system a big time and.... is it worth the trouble? Plus how can you keep UK united? What about people who like monarchy system. What about class system in UK?

 

[Arakhor]

No, they're apparently just guaranteed massive bungs from the state for them and their companies instead.

 

[Kyriakos]

No, they're apparently just guaranteed massive bungs from the state for them and their companies instead.

Which - in theory - they can lose. If they don't remain as unscrupulous and misanthropic in stepping over others and gaming the system with which they form a chronic complex that can seem perpetual.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Of course, in practice, other economical elites play that role already, but at least they aren't guaranteed a massive salary from the state for their entire family tree.

Uk royals ain't that expensive you know.

 

[Kyriakos]

Uk royals ain't that expensive you know.

If they are worth 60 billion pounds, that is top 5-10 richest on earth.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Germany still has royalty. They just have to live like everyone else.

 

[Zardnaar]

Royal family could buy Greece with pocket change left over?

 

[Kupe Navigator]

If they are worth 60 billion pounds, that is top 5-10 richest on earth.

and how much of it is from tax? I meant British royals ain't that expensive to keep.
They aren't even the most expensive in Europe let alone the world.

 

[Arakhor]

Germany still has royalty. They just have to live like everyone else.

Like every other extremely rich person, you mean.

 

[Kyriakos]

Like every other extremely rich person, you mean.

It's what would also happen to the british royals.
They just wouldn't be an emblem of paternalism in the realm of symbols and the reality of massive state-funding for simply being born.

@Zardnaar , as the only person from NZ I consider to be a royal would say:
Ok boomer.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Symbolically, it would give the impression that you don't get a few supremely privileged people with the rest being reduced to subjects.
Of course, in practice, other economical elites play that role already, but at least they aren't guaranteed a massive salary from the state for their entire family tree.

This is the best argument against monarchy.

It isn't remotely fair and it sets a precedent for unfairness.

And if fairness was all that mattered when constituting a state, I'd agree that any form of monarchy would be abominable.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Can they be voted out? What is the path to end the monarchy?

 

[sophie]

Lolz you are delusional if you think that's possible.

The question was not about what is possible. The question is about moral oughts. And monarchy ought to be abolished in any form in which it exists, by whatever means necessary.