Time to get rid of the Monarchy?

Should the UK get rid of the Monarchy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 33 42.3%
  • No

    Votes: 26 33.3%
  • Radioactive monkeys should rule all countries

    Votes: 19 24.4%

  • Total voters
    78
yeah sure...
meanwhile all the Scandinavian kingdoms, Netherlands, Belgium and smaller kingdoms in Europe be like
COOLSTORY.jpg
[/URL]

Do you oppose slavery because slavery is unpopular? Or do you oppose it because it is morally correct to do so?

What about Vatican city?

Unlike you I actually give a **** about freedom, so what do you think? But spoiler alert I don’t have a particularly high opinion of the Catholic Church either.
 
These valuations often confuse things by including the "crown estate" which is conceptually just public land, ie nothing inherently monarchical about it. A lot of that tourism is also tied to sites which would certainly continue exist. Like they're not going to dynamite the palaces, they might even use them more effectively as public assets.
But as a tourist, I saw them as directly tied to the Monarchy even if not to Lizzy. Well, some of them; not the shopping centers or housing....
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's relevant how economically great having royals might be, unless you're arguing there's a price that can be paid for setting aside an arbitrary group as being inherently superior to every other human being alive.
say that to many other European monarchs and Japanese Empire. Heck there are some European Monarchs who are happy with their Queen/King.
 
Do you oppose slavery because slavery is unpopular? Or do you oppose it because it is morally correct to do so?



Unlike you I actually give a **** about freedom, so what do you think? But spoiler alert I don’t have a particularly high opinion of the Catholic Church either.
You are no better than monarchs if you think force will help people.
He who fights monsters...
 
say that to many other European monarchs and Japanese Empire. Heck there are some European Monarchs who are happy with their Queen/King.
There is a long history of people being indoctrinated into loving a king or queen. I am not sure how this is relevant. If you can convince someone that something bad is good, it becomes good? You can find millions of people who have any assortment of heinous views. That does not make their views correct or acceptable. The mere possession of a thought does not imbue it with righteousness, the same way the mere existence of someone in a bloodline does not imbue them with the Divine Mandate to rule.
 
But as a tourist, I saw them as directly tied to the Monarchy even if not to Lizzy.

The question is not if you were thinking of the Crown when you were visiting them. The question was whether their existence had any bearing on your decision to visit those sites up or down. Would you still visit Versailles and the Louvre if you were in Paris?
 
I am not sure how this is relevant. If you can convince someone that something bad is good, it becomes good? You can find millions of people who have any assortment of heinous views. That does not make their views correct or acceptable.
But at the same time who are you to force your views on to others? If people are happy with monarchy or don't care about them... let them have their view
 
But at the same time who are you to force your views on to others? If people are happy with monarchy or don't care about them... let them have their view
Given that I am a "subject" of this charade, it is relevant to me.

Also, what? Seriously, what? Me rejecting monarchy is me forcing my views on others? What in the hell do you think monarchy is?
 
So Lincoln was wrong to oppose secession??
You make it seem like Lincoln wanted war. also having a royalty isn't the same as being a slave you know.
Do you think people in Japan think they are slave to the emperor?

Also, what? Seriously, what? Me rejecting monarchy is me forcing my views on others? What in the hell do you think monarchy is?
You can reject monarch personally but I think we have to wait till we get a poll to see how people of all of UK feels about royal family. There are still a support for them in the UK.

one thing for sure... at least in NZ people here don't really feel the need to form NZ republic. according to Wikipedia
Following the 2020 New Zealand general election, an online poll of 1,003 New Zealanders aged eighteen and over found that 20 per cent agreed that "New Zealand should become a republic", with 36 per cent of the respondents remaining neutral and 44 per cent disagreeing outright. The poll also found that 19 per cent wanted to change the national flag, and ten per cent wanted to change the country's name
 
You make it seem like Lincoln wanted war.

Lincoln opposed secession and had no compunctions about doing whatever was necessary to ensure the union remained whole. It’s the sort of moral conviction which is apparently utterly alien to you.

also having a royalty isn't the same as being a slave you know. Do you think people in Japan think they are slave to the emperor?

No of course not. But according to your ethical system, slavery is not wrong unless and only unless a majority of people say they don’t want it. Which means the abolitionists were wrong and the suffragettes were wrong and the civil rights movement was wrong. Your abject amorality sickens me.

Moderator Action: The swearing, even when auto-modded, is inappropriate, as you well know. ~ Arakhor
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Monarchy is actually profitable for the UK believe it or not, primarily because of the tourism it generates. As long as that is the case I highly doubt it is removed.
 
The question is not if you were thinking of the Crown when you were visiting them. The question was whether their existence had any bearing on your decision to visit those sites up or down. Would you still visit Versailles and the Louvre if you were in Paris?
Yes, I've been to both but for different reasons. Neither is connected to a living French King or Queen. The Louvre is now an art museum (mostly) and what is inside is what is mostly of interest to visitors. Versailles is more like Hampton court. BTW, Hampton Court Place was opened to the public in 1838 and has been a huge tourist attraction ever since. In England the Monarchy is a living tradition that has a long history that is interesting, but it is also in the news because of current events. That enhances its appeal. "Ooo look, the flag is up at Windsor! The Queen is there!" Charles will not rule England or an Empire; he will be a figurehead, a symbol of English tradition. Lots of folks don't like that tradition because it represents, in their minds, the bad practices of long dead monarchs. The inequality of wealth and nobility that monarchy carried forward is just a more formal display of what exists without a royal family in most places. As yet we do not have a system to replace "class and wealth". If the Brits choose to rid themselves of their monarchy, I'm sure they will please as many as they disappoint. Will doing so make England a better place to live?
 
The Monarchy is actually profitable for the UK believe it or not, primarily because of the tourism it generates. As long as that is the case I highly doubt it is removed.
People would still visit the castles even if the royals weren't in. Like what happens with all other famous monuments in countries without royals.
 
People would still visit the castles even if the royals weren't in. Like what happens with all other famous monuments in countries without royals.
Living monarchs do seem to make a difference.
When Prince William married Kate Middleton in April 2011, the UK’s Association of Leading Visitor Attractions claimed it:

Saw an additional 600,000 people come to London for the weekend, 60% from UK, 40% from overseas, spending £107m … The value to ‘brand Britain’ due to global media coverage was approximately £1 billion.
VisitBritain reported that, globally, more than two billion people watched the wedding ceremony, with its content aired by key broadcasters internationally. It wasn’t just visitors to London that increased – the Office for National Statistics reported that during April 2011, an extra 350,000 visitors travelled to the UK compared to 2010. Tourism also flourished on the island of Anglesey in Wales, where the royal couple lived after the wedding. Tourism managers said William and Kate brought priceless publicity and some tourism businesses reported a 20% increase in business in 2011.

The queen’s official residences also attract significant numbers of visitors: 2.8m people in 2016, with the top three being Windsor Castle (1,432,260 visitors), Buckingham Palace (576,995 visitors), and the Palace of Holyroodhouse (392,260 visitors). These statistics corroborate research by VisitBritain in 2011 which showed that more than 60% of overseas visitors who come to Britain are “likely” to visit places associated with the royal family.
 
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.

They've trimmed the Civil List quite a bit over the years. The Queen's grandchildren all got real jobs (yes, even William and Harry).

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?

Dunno about the UK. Constitutional stuff is a headache in Canada.

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

Constitutional chaos, at least in Canada. Our constitution was repatriated 40 years ago and Quebec still hasn't signed on because Pierre Trudeau wouldn't declare them a "distinct society" and a bunch of other reasons. Some of the Conservative premiers wanted a bunch of concessions that included changing the anthem to the point where it basically meant that only Christian men were patriotic, and women and non-Christians weren't. Well, they finally fixed the sexist part of that. Fix the religious bias, and I can finally sing it with a clear conscience, as I have not been able to do for over 40 years.

Trying to get 10 provinces and 3 territories to agree on anything is basically impossible, even if it's just when to have lunch. Changing the Constitution to eliminate the monarchy and decide what to do about the GG, the provincial L-Gs, and a gazillion other institutions and countless political and cultural things that make our country tick is asking more than anyone is willing to give.

Yes, absolutely. It is a moral stain which must be destroyed. That it still exists and is earnestly defended today is a sad reflection of the sorry, unfree, backwards state of the world in which we presently live.

This is funny in a sad way, since you are part of a forum that's dedicated to a game that includes Monarchy as a form of government, and King is one of the forum ranks which you had at one time, even if you had a different usertitle.

Any of the anti-monarchists here a fan of any TV series or movie that includes some element of monarchy? If you say no, I've got a BS flag smiley I'm not sure I'd be allowed to post.

I'm not saying the British monarchy is perfect - it's far from perfect. But it's helped to provide stability for centuries, and it's at least partly influenced the culture and history, for better or worse, of nearly every country on the planet.

My life would be very different today if I hadn't spent 12 years in the Society for Creative Anachronism, which was founded by a group of writers and historians in 1966, all of whom were interested in monarchy and medieval history.

For one thing, I'd never have learned to play Civ, so I'd never have come to this forum.

For two things, there's a host of other things I'd never have learned, people I'd never have met, subjects I'd never have become interested in, things I'd never have done, and I think my life would have been much less interesting.

I realize that monarchy can be brutal if the monarch literally has the power of life and death over the people, as is still the case in some parts of the world. I guess I tend to consider it from the political perspective in Canada, and the historical, literary, and artistic perspective of the SCA. I may never have met the Queen of England, but I spent an evening with the King and Queen of An Tir, sitting on the floor of someone's living room, watching the premiere of Star Trek: The Next Generation with about 30 other people, most of us still in our costumes.

I don't think it's relevant how economically great having royals might be, unless you're arguing there's a price that can be paid for setting aside an arbitrary group as being inherently superior to every other human being alive.

I never felt they were inherently superior to every other human being alive. I've seen Princess Margaret, and wasn't impressed (she was in Red Deer for a whistle stop event that resulted in something or other being named for her). Her visit was actually rather inconvenient since security had roped off the middle of downtown hours before she was due to arrive, which meant I wasn't allowed into the library to return my books. I guess I should ask Charles to pay me back for the fine I was dinged with.

Funny thing I noticed a long time ago about the Americans... they rejected being ruled by the British monarch, but over time, they created their own version of royalty, in the form of Hollywood actors and actresses, sports figures, and charismatic politicians. After all, aren't those who reach the top of the heap referred to as the "King" of whatever, or the "Queen" of whatever? Funny nomenclature for people who hate everything monarchical...
 
Any of the anti-monarchists here a fan of any TV series or movie that includes some element of monarchy? If you say no, I've got a BS flag smiley I'm not sure I'd be allowed to post.
The existence of a concept on television does not seem to praise its merits IRL. Or rather, one does not follow the other. I am not a believer of Norse paganism because I enjoyed watching Thor, nor am I a supporter of Russia's doping program because I liked The Winter Soldier. Subsequently, there is no reason to think one would love the monarchy in real life if they once enjoyed some kind of media that had a noble in it.
 
This is funny in a sad way, since you are part of a forum that's dedicated to a game that includes Monarchy as a form of government, and King is one of the forum ranks which you had at one time, even if you had a different usertitle.

It also has slavery and fascism as forms of government, but I shouldn’t think your being a member here signals tacit approval for for either of those things, nor your opposition to them to be a form of hypocrisy.

Any of the anti-monarchists here a fan of any TV series or movie that includes some element of monarchy? If you say no, I've got a BS flag smiley I'm not sure I'd be allowed to post.

Again, this strikes me a bizarre point to make, unless you are suggesting that being a feminist and opposing patriarchy while also enjoying Handmaid’s Tale is likewise hypocritical behavior deserving of censure.

I'm not saying the British monarchy is perfect - it's far from perfect. But it's helped to provide stability for centuries, and it's at least partly influenced the culture and history, for better or worse, of nearly every country on the planet.

You can find misogynists making very similar arguments for why the franchise should be restricted to male property holders in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
 
Back
Top Bottom