Yes |
 |
60.7% (74) |
No |
|
27.9% (34) |
Other |
|
3.3% (4) |
Daystar for King! |
|
7.4% (9) |
Poll: Should we keep the British Monarchy? Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT | |
I doubt the stats needed to prove this point either way even exist. I doubt people get asked "why did you decide to come here today? The building or the queen?", they'll just get asked if they enjoyed themselves. However I do remember a lot of interviews during the royal visit to Canada last year. A lot of people were out to get a glimpse of William and Kate. Another million turned out for their wedding. These aren't people interested in a building, they're interested in the royals. I doubt a president would ever get that kind of draw. Have you ever heard of the massive crowds out to meet David Cameron?
Now from my reading of that the estates belong to the crown but not to the monarch, but at the same time they do not belong to the government, meaning neither side technically owns it as is.
This doesn't say that the monarchy surrenders the estates, merely the income. Since the government never outright bought the estates then if the crown is abolished then they lose that income. Its a pretty simple business deal. Government pays for the crowns upkeep in exchange for the crown estates profits. If the government withhold the civil list then they have breached their contract, meaning the crown would be allowed to keep their profits as they have no obligation to keep them. Hey presto the government loses around £200million. The monarch doesn't give up ownership of the estates, they merely let someone else hold them in exchange for their bum on the throne. Take that away what obligation do they have to let us keep the income? None. | |
I don't really have any reasons other than blind patriotisim but, well...you know GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!! and all that, i'd rather we kept them around. I just like having them and since they do bring in a profit.... | |
well i would gladly watch the video if it was embedded correctly, but dont worry i'll fix it then come back and edit this post with a response after i've watched it. since you also refused to do any refutation of your own and provide any other proof then a youtube video though i might call bullshit. EDIT: it seems like the youtube link is broken so i did some research of my own, and everything you said is republican conjecture that has no real backing to it. | |
I must admit, I find the idea of a monarchy, as it exists, fascinating. Other than that, I must admit that I don't fully understand the cost/benefit ratio, and think the people in the UK need to decide for themselves what they want to do. | |
Yeah, it's nice to have them about, in a sort of 'incredibly expensive living ornaments' kind of way. And it's nice to have someone who can, in theory, stop Parliament from being dicks, even if that never happens and probably shouldn't. | |
Well, arguably that is running the country according to some, if he sat in no. 10 actually gathering information and making decisions, morons would start throwing around the "out of touch" card. Personal appearances and being personable are still unfortunately often rated higher than actual talent and ability. In actuality they can be a massive timesink and can blindside people into rating an incompetent incumbent higher than he/she merits, cf. George W. Bush, he of you could have a beer with him fame. | |
Your asking a riduclous question at the end there because you know damn well it's impossible to give an exact figure on that only estimates. If I remember right it's estimated at around 800 million pounds in tourism. Now im at work right now, youtube is blocked so I can't see the video's posted, but im guessing one of the those on the first page is the CGP Grey video on the monarchy, if not look him up on youtube and find the video. If you watch it he makes a very strong argument against your second point, yes the buildings would still be there and attract some tourism. But the huge part of the alure of our castles and palaces that gives us the edge over the French on this front is that ours are still lived in and used by real live royality, it almost makes the UK seem like a fairytale place to foreigners and that's the real tourist draw, the buildings become dull and boring with the royalty that live in them. I work in an office with a lot of Russian staff, I recently had a conversation with some of them, where I was asked, "Why do people think of vodka and bears when they think of Russia?" As it moved along I asked what did you think of when you thought of Britain before you came here, to which they all replied "The Queen". The Queen is actually better known around the world that Coca Cola or the even the USA, with that level of fame we have a real tourist draw. Without the monarchy we are nothing more than very dull rainy country that no one would want to come to from a tourist prespective. This is further backed up by the number of people who watch royal weddings and other events around the world.
Actually no, the Monarchy still has full ownership of all of its lands, they only give up the income from these lands, we remove the monarchy from power we have no right to take these lands, the royal family with just revert to being a private family that owns the most land in the country. There is no legal obligation either for any monarch to give up the income frmo these lands, they just will always voluntarily do so as to not do so would be the end the for them. Now a more general point, im left of centre and even I support haveing the monarchy and even an unelected House of Lords to some extent, why? They are very effective check and balance on potential rogue governments. Look at the last year, the House of Lords has vigorously oppossed many of the most unpopular government measures such as the NHS reform. This is becuase they can't be forced to tow a party line like MP's in the Commons, they can't be forced to back a deeply unpopular government agenda with the threat of losing their job. The monarchy, whilst nothing more than a Kabuki theatre most of the time that exercises zero political power within the UK, could provide us with a failsafe in extreme circumstances. Let's say some how a deeply unpopular facist party becomes the majority in Commons because of our terrible electoral system, say they have just 25% of the vote in a low turnout due to rigged elections, corruption etc... far from an real majority, so the majority of people strongly oppose them. They then try to suspend elections create a complete police state, the people can then plede to the monarch to interviene, and exercise their authority to withdraw endoursement of the government and then the bulk of the military would ultimately follow them. Elections and democracy would then be easily restored. You may say the monarch could then seize power, yes it's possible but how would this been any different to the facist government doing so? My general point is that yes, of course it's important that the elected branch of government should have by far the most power, but having unelected aspects of government to put control on this does have some strong benefits. Although I will say I couldn't see this system working in America, the strong emphasise on tradition in British politics is what makes this work. This is about the only time I would defend tradition, ever, but it just works in this case. | |
I'd get rid of them, provided we didn't replace them with something else. No offence to France or America and other places that have a presidential sustem, but I prefer the parliamentary system, and don't feel we need an extra layer of govt. and another 'leader' above the Prime Minister. | |
Interesting you bring this up, seeing as the Royal Wedding was viewed as doing fairly large damage to the economy. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/df10b5cc-c4ff-11e0-ba51-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1v2krP1M9
Cameron isn't a head of state, which is what we're talking about. For a fairer comparison: Also since when did 'how big a crowd they draw' become the metric for if we keep the monarchy?
It is laid out in the Crown Act 1961 that the Crown Estate has functional control over the estate and that they are to take instructions form the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State.
Just like if monarchs don't give Royal Assent we can't pass laws? Also they don't just surrender the income, they have surrendered control over it as well.
Except the monarchy does what it is told by parliament, hence the current complete restructuring of the payment method and the end of the Civil List.
Just an owner who has no control and receives no profits. The 'ownership' is a face saving gesture. Compare it to the way, say, the Shoguns of Japan were supposed to be subordinate to the Emperor but in truth ruled the country. Other than the benefits the Queen receives from parliament, can you think of a single way she can exert her ownership over the Crown Estate?
No, because we have been over this and you even brought it up and agreed with me earlier in your post.. They have to give the Crown Estates up to sit on the throne. If they aren't on the throne they don't get it. The Crown Estate belongs to the Crown, not Elizabeth personally. It is not an exchange because they do not have the power to give, only to receive.
Basic morality. | |
Did you forget your bit in an earlier post about things taken from ancestors by descendents are still stolen?
Yes. Parliament gave William III the throne in return for him recognising their sovereignty, he agreed, and his successors have reigned ever since. Also, to clear up a common misconception, Scottish people are British. And Scottish and Irish people have attacked the English, who I assume you actually meant, just as much. And why don't the Welsh get a mention?
A quick google suggests that even cheap hospitals cost at least twice as much as your number for how much the royals cost.
But you still aren't justifying attacking her. The difference is one is something for which she now works to justify it, the other is someone going, "Well you were lucky so I'm justified in attacking you." | |
That video makes some pretty dubious claims- like the fact that it attributes basically all of the UK's tourism revenue to the royal family's influence, justifying that by only looking at the fact that American tourists tend to come to England more than France. That's absolutely insane. Surely the fact that in England people speak English is more relevant to American travel habits then the presence or absence of a royal family. Also the fact that we've gone through at least two decades of anti-French propaganda from the conservative side of the US probably doesn't help things. But my point was not that England should ditch the queen. In fact, I think if you'll look at my first post here you'll see that my point was that it doesn't matter what I think, and that the only way to decide what should be done is for the English to conduct a genuine cost/benefit analysis. | |
EH this link provides a more detailed view on how the queen benefits the UK costs wise in a fairly detailed manner http://www.monarchy.net/costMonarchy.htm also you can attribute the queen heavily to tourism, seriously answer me this whats the first thing you think of when you hear england? its probably the queen, or at least the royal family. now sure a cost benefit analysis would be good, but right now getting rid of the monarchy is pretty much impossible since they own (legally)large parts, probably almost all, of the UK and bits of Canada. aside from that people in the UK are incredibly divided on the issue and they probably wouldn't reach a resolve. | |
Actually, the first things I think of are: Good curries, rain, tea, chocolate, Indian women, attractive (and also sometimes very unattractive) accents, slags, chavs, laddettes, drinking, Top Gear, soccer, rugby, cricket, "chalk and cheese", "in'nit?", Monty Python, the fact that the country successfully integrated waves of immigration from the Indian subcontinent and Jamaica and well over 75% of the country is white British but for some reason there's a bunch of hand-wringing about how Muslim immigration is going to destroy the country, Parliament, Blackadder, and Louis Theroux getting his picture taken nude so he could investigate the American porn industry. The royals aren't even a blip on my radar. | |
Yeah, the first thing I think of when I think of England is their whole rivalry with France, followed by a number of British TV shows, Sherlock Holmes, and Hugh Laurie. The Royals used to be up there in my mind back when you couldn't turn a corner or open a web browser without hearing some shit about the royal wedding. The Royalty is not -that- interesting, and this is speaking as a guy who actually kind of likes them, if only for the novelty. But here's the most crucial thing. If you get rid of the Monarchy, what do you call the country? It can't be the United Kingdom anymore, you don't have a monarch. The United Republic? Then you're not the U.K. anymore! You'll have to call yourselves like, the United Kountry. ...actually, go for that. That'd be hilarious. | |
Keep 'em if only for the money and the corgis. I love those corgis. | |
Edit - Ninja'd | |
No, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I'm just talking about it in terms of class rather than nationality, as I've repeated in pretty much every single post to you. I will expand a bit, as maybe it is not as obvious to me as it is to you. It isn't that it was people from one nation or part of a country conquering another, it is the fact that people were conquered at all and then the privilege and wealth that was created at the expense of ordinary people was then passed down. It doesn't matter if it is a foreign army invading or someone conquering their own countrymen, it doesn't matter to me in the slightest, it's the wealth earned by power which is then inherited in perpetuity that is the problem.
No. Parliament at the time was merely a collection of landed interests in the most literal sense. It was no more the will of the people then the constant apartheid governments in South Africa were the will of the black people who were unable to vote. As they had no say in the matter, directly or through a representative they had elected, it cannot be said to be the will of the people. There's also the fact that the only reason William was in that position was that he had massive privilege inherited which he had already inherited under exactly the same conditions you are trying to find the source of.
I wasn't talking about attacking, I was talking about deaths under Imperialism. If you try and equate some IRA attack with the millions that died in Ireland under British rule, for example, then I would probably join the Irish person in giving you a smack.
We're to chill.
http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2010/08/04/bids-invited-for-150m-new-papworth-hospital-pfi/
I said if forced to choose between giving her her wealth and smacking her in the face, not that I just want to go smack her in the face now.
I'm not looking for it down to the pennies. If it's estimated to within 800m, show me where and how that was calculated.
You made me watch that shitty video just in case I had switched off and missed a point on tourism. No, it turns out he says that they bring in tourist money because he says they do. Shame on you for subjecting me to that again. Shame
Great anecdote, but I prefer evidence.
Acts of parliament say otherwise: "The Commissioners shall, for the purpose of managing and improving the Crown Estate or any part of it, have authority to do on behalf of the Crown over or in relation to land or other property, rights or interests forming part of the Crown Estate, and in relation to all matters arising in the management of the Crown Estate, all such acts as belong to the Crown's rights of ownership, free from any restraint on alienation imposed on the Crown by section five of the Crown Lands Act 1702 or by any other enactment (whether general or particular), and to execute and do in the name of Her Majesty all instruments and things proper for the effective exercise of their powers."
Moral right or legal right? If you mean we have no moral right, HA. If you mean legal right, see the appropriate acts of parliament. The land is not an heirloom that is passed from one person to another, it is indivisible form the Crown, Parliament and the Crown Estate Commission. If Elizabeth were to step down, she wouldn't have the option of the Crown Estates being in her name even if Charles were King because they cannot be removed from the Crown. I'll ignore the rest of the fan fiction about the Queen personally stopping a Neo-Nazi dictatorship. | |
Ah I see. So is your education system so poor that they teach you that all Americans went out and decided that Bush should be President and that everything about that was fine? No? The do you just like making stupid attacks on people based on nationality? Is that your problem? Well whatever it is, your post is just fallacious garbage. | |
I think I get what Elcarsh is saying and I basically agree with him, but he phrased it badly. You're 100% correct on your UK analysis. It's just that as an American, you haven't applied that analysis on your own country. One of the defining features of Capitalism is that people can be privileged with great wealth because their parents were privileged with great wealth. Due to the power of wealth, this then opens up many different forms of privilege to them throughout their lives. His example of this is the Bush Presidents. Out of the hundreds of millions of people in the US, two of the most recent presidents happened to be father and son? Bush Jnr didn't benefit from wealth and the opportunities that bought? He didn't benefit from the national recognition and contacts his father had? I think most people would disagree with that. Monarchy is unegalitarian, even if they're extremely limited, but so is a capitalist society. | |
Oh, so do tell me how you decided that. I never said my country was perfect. It'll be nice to see your amazing argument for how you know what I think about things here in America when I never told you. I'm sure it won't just be some stupid assumptions about me.
Yes. I know that. I'm waiting to hear where it is said that I approve of that.
And I am waiting to hear where I said that I thought that was all good.
Yes. Are you going off the idiotic stereotype that all Americans love capitalism? | |
Well, I've happened to have followed a few courses on this subject. Any tourist brochure of London or other relevant cities... Without exception, anything having to do with royalty will be in it. And the people who write those do their market research, most of the time. They're not going to advertise something people don't want to visit. Basically, everything royal either already is or can be made into a tourist attraction, especially if the country of origin of the tourists don't have it yet. To name an example, we Dutch ferry tourists to the former island Schokland in the Flevoland province. If I sum up Schokland for you, it would be "A lighthouse, two sheds and a cafe in the middle of kilometres of unremarkable pastures". Now why on earth does such a place literally get busses full of mainly Japanese and Chinese tourists? Because such a thing is unknown over there. Large scale land reclamation is a fairly 'Dutch thing', and those unremarkable reclaimed pastures of which we Dutch have so much we don't know what to do with them, are actually quite a unique landscape in the world. Much in the same Americans will be drawn to royal palaces for instance. If for not other reasons, because they're nice buildings with a story to tell. To quote Zukin 1991, page 221) cities are a "dreamscape of visual consumption" when it comes to tourist development. And the British royal family is already a tourist commodity that doesn't need (risky) marketing first. Even their visits to a place are specifically named as an example of a touristic 'opportunity' in another book I read (page 201-202). So considering that, I think the video is right if it claims a tourist value from having a royal family and asociated palaces and occasions. | |
The monarchy is nothing more than a reminder of oppression, torment, and suffering. And that's if you get around the fact that the Queen has estates all over Canada - when she only visits our country just once a year. So, even beyond the awful symbolism which they hold the Royal Family is also wasteful and over privileged. Fortunately for the British, I've got a solution to how you can make some money off the royal family and still keep them: Make a reality T.V show off of them. Now, some of you may think this is satire (which it is, I'm a very sarcastic person) but this is how I truly feel about the subject: Deep down in my heart I am being completely sincere and I want this to happen to them - the queen particularly. Basically, we strip the Royal family completely of their wealth and throw them in some shitty low rental apartment and film everything that happens. I'd love to see how etiquette, polite, and mature these people are devoid of once they're stripped of their overly priced comforts. Besides helping boost the British economy (besides wasting it, which the Royal Family was regardless of how much money they were making off their crappy merchandise)I truly believe that this program would serve to be educational for everyone, most of all the royal family. They'd finally learn that outside of their obscene wealth they're nothing important and we'd finally learn that these people that we look up to probably aren't too different from the cast of jersey shore. I understand that I'm being venomous, but I'm actually showing a lot of restraint. There's far worse things I have in mind to say about the queen, but I simply won't say them. Just understand that I disdain everything she is and I see absolutely no difference between her and Hilton. | |
That is the only part of the article that mentions the wedding and even then gives no definitive assessment on it's affect. There is no way of knowing what was the cause of the drop in GDP; was it the wedding, the tsunami or maybe just people not doing a lot during the Easter break? (I can't remember what the weather was like then). This doesn't definitively state that the wedding had a negative effect, just that it may have contributed, hardly damning evidence.
You're right that it's a fairer comparison but I wasn't talking about the post, I was talking about the man. Imagine our prime ministers were instead presidents; could Cameron draw that kind of crowd? Could Blair? Brown? I doubt it. American politicians rely on the cult of personality, ours... not so much, I just cant see them pulling it off.
So do numerous other independent companies. They aren't part of any government office, they just follow instructions about their relationship with government. I'm sure private companies have similar instructions on how they deal with the government.
Royal assent is a meaningless gesture, more to do with tradition than law so they are nothing alike. They surrender control yes, but not to the government. The Crown Estate Commissioners (CEC) only exist to maintain the estate, if the monarchs decided to take back their lands then they couldn't deny them (assuming they'd given up the throne).
So the monarchy cant have a business agreement because they 'work' for the government? I'm pretty sure business doesn't work like that. If the government renege on the agreement, why should the monarchy stick to it? And the ending of the civil list is no big deal, it's being replaced with a better package. The Sovereign Grant is just a combined payment from 3 already existing sources within the government, nothing is really being changed except the crown gets 1 cheque instead of 3.
"we're going to break our deal, steal what you brought to the table and refuse to give our offer, oh and take your houses too; effectively making you destitute but you shouldn't say anything about this, it wouldn't be polite" So how does basic morality tie into theft? | |
When he brought up his point, you responded with something completely different, as Bush Jnr not being elected by all USA citizens isn't related to the structural problems that lead him to be the Republican candidate in the first place. This indicates that you didn't understand that he meant, so I assumed you didn't recognise the problems he was referring to rather than purposely avoiding his point. Also there was your reference to monarchy not happening in an egalitarian society, which to me inferred that if the monarchy were abolished then the society would be relatively egalitarian. | |
Oh so was it too hard to guess that I was just pointing out my utter lack of support for any of what he mentioned? I guess so. I'm still waiting for you to point out where I voiced my support of any of the other things btw. Since apparently I need to explain the blatantly obvious, he was accusing me of hypocrisy, I was pointing out that all the stuff he pointed out was neither done by me nor approved by me.
It doesn't infer that at all. Basic logic, srsly. If I point out something that doesn't belong in an egalitarian society, that does not magically make it the only thing that you need to get rid of to have one. That was you making a ridiculous assumption. Congratulations. | |
I'd be surprised if anybody outside of anti-white racists and dogmatic marxists would agree to that. (the linked story is some bullshit about how the 'golden carriage' that Amsterdam gave to the Dutch queen is a racist contraption. Google translate if you want free entertainment about the ridiculousness of the extreme-left)
Jealousy is not a valid argument. They deserve quite a generous compensation for not being allowed to have a life of their own. Merely being the target of cantankerous republicans deserves a generous compensation if you ask me. | |
It sucks, doesn't it, that the official position of the entire country is determined by poll numbers, where the majority gets to call the shots and the 49,9% that remain can just fuck off? We call it democracy. I thought you liked it. If you want to argue in favour of democracy over monarchy then you can't just turn around the next minute and refuse to acknowledge that your democratically elected government represents your people. In a democracy, the simple majority calls the shots, and the rest don't have a leg to stand on. It's not that much better than a monarchy, is it? | |
It wasn't obvious no, thak you for explaining that. However, the problem with that argument is that they don't gain their wealth through power. They gain it through inheritance, which is a perfectly acceptable thing. And many of their predeccessors gained it in the same way. Also, if I applied your logic to myself, I'm pretty confident I'd have to hand over some of what I own to some random other people, because some of my ancestors once took some things from someone else of lesser social standing, but most people would say this was silly.
If it was not the will of the people, then surely they would have resisted William's ascension in some way, but it is known to have been a bloodless revolution. William was in that position because he had married the closest person there was to an heir.
If you mean the potato famine, then yes, that was a bad thing and all, but that had nothing to do with the royals.
http://cherryman.co.uk/images/casestudies/OneCanadaSquare.jpg
Fair enough. | |
The official position? Where was that written? Oh it wasn't. It's just an illogical attack on me assuming that somehow I support it.
No, I call that nonsense, democracy has nothing to do with attributing the position of the majority to me.
I can point out that it doesn't represent me or my positions. And it is better than a monarchy regardless. Now I'm sure your... education system... did a great job, given the well thought out stuff you've said. But I guess they neglected to mention that the British monarchy doesn't have much to do with governing at all. They may have also neglected to tell you to read what you reply to. Since my point against them wasn't about governing anyway. TL;DR: Just learn not to make stupid ad hominem attacks based on nationalities. | |
Last time I checked, I've never been a dogmatic marxist or Anti - white racist so I'm just going to have to question the credibility of your judgement of people. You assume my reasoning is out of jealousy but I am quite curious why you decided to ignore the part of where I brought up that they have estates all throughout my country that are completely unneeded and wasteful to our land. And even if I were jealous, (Which I'm not - if I were I'd hate basically every single musician and movie star out there) I would hope that wouldn't invalidate my argument. Why, that would just be fallacious. They deserve compensation for taking everyone's money, wasting space, and being considered role models on the basis that they just happened to be born in a family that's prestigious? I'm sorry, but coming out of the ball sack of a 'special' person doesn't earn anyone the right to be regarded as a greater person. Oh, and besides being a target of those cantankerous republicans I'm also hated by: Monarchists So, where is my compensation? | |
Just don't forget to provide some sources, maybe survivor's testimonies from all those hundreds of people tortured by the queen of England. That's along the lines of what you claimed the royals did, so that's what people will be expecting for proof.
Historical buildings, governmental function, heritage, nature preserves, national identity, take your pick. Whatever the case, there's a use for it. Besides, most of it is centuries old. You can't blame someone for happening to inherit something. By the way, if it's not jealousy, then why can't a royal family be paid for what they do? Not wanting to allow someone to make anything at all over who they are sounds quite jealous to me. Not just that, ussually "These people are [fill in any group], so they deserve nothing" is ussually quite a dangerous slogan. | |
Zoom zooom, super speedy replies before I have my dinner
Fair point. Office of National Statistics picked up on it as a possible cause of worse than expected economic results and the Confederation of British Industry puts the cost of a bank holiday at 6 billion
Again, you're using Prime Ministers so I think its an unfair comparison. At least look at Presidents on the continent. I think there is a cultural aspect to it, but if it's an indirect comparison there's no point in making it.
You seem to be misunderstanding. The Crown Act is a law. it states the Crown Estate Comission does what certain cabinet members say. It is literally the law that they do what the government says.
That was actually my point, the Queen's relation to the Crown Estate is a meaningless gesture.
They can't give up the throne and take back their lands. The Crown Estate is linked to the throne not the ruler and they have no control over it in any way shape or form.
Because the government sets the laws and if it passes a law saying "We kick out the queen and BTW the Crown Estates are now called the People's Ultra Marxist Property Estates" then Elizabeth is just a woman with no legislative power and no authority over the Crown Estates.
1) It's not theft if you're democratically taking back your own property. 2) Say it is theft. In a few decades the people that were involved with it will be dead and it will be other people who weren't involved in repatriating the people's land that are reaping the benefits. No harm no foul After all, your philosophy is that benefiting from an act that you didn't commit yourself, no matter how heinous, isn't wrong, right?
I know they don't, hence the whole "and then it is passed down and the next generation has inherited it", part of my arguement. I've offered explanations, albeit brief ones, of why this inheritance is bad. You have just said that is is perfectly acceptable without offering any reason WHY it is perfectly acceptable. IF you're just going to say "This is so because I say so", we're not going to get very far.
Sounds like a plan.
Umm no, people only always resist things they don't agree with in really basic economic textbooks. I'm willing to place a wager that I can come up with a hundred examples of people doing things against their will without resistance in my spare time in the next week. If I'm right, you have to never post on these forums again. If I'm wrong, you have to never post on these forums again. Wanna take the bet? Also lack of a developed and educated social conciousness with which to make informed decisions, the minority Whigs who did want to form a republic, blahblahblah.
Not just the potato famine, but also the various wars and occupations. The topic originally arose in regards to monarchs obviously not being appointed according to the will of the people. The Scottish and Irish are relevant because they're well known for having fought wars of independence to try and free themselves from English oppression that was forced on them through military might, social convention and the legacies thereof - both relatively recently and historically.
Yeah? | |
Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. You're saying that their inheritance is bad because their predeccessors took things that didn't belong to them. I'm saying they didn't, they bought things or inherited things.
To use your later example, people have ofetn opposed monarchs being imposed on them, such as the Scottish, Irish and Welsh, the Gunpowder Plot, the Wars of the Roses, 1066, the Battle of the Boyne, the Jacobite uprising. Even in the 20th century, when Elizabeth became queen postboxes with EIIR on them in Scotland were defaced because there has never been an Elizabeth I in Scotland.
But the current monarchy was not imposed. Scotland and England joined when the Scottish King became the King of England, not the other way around. And Northern Ireland chooses to remain a part of a Kingdom when they could join a republic if they wanted to.[/quote]
| |
My mistake there I was trying to remember off the top of my head the numbers from that video. However my statement stands, you're asking a ridiculous question that cannot be conclusively answered, like the hardcore Christian right do when they ask if you know there is no God. Your question is malformed.
CGPGrey is a damn sight more knowledgable then you, if you watch his series of video's, you see he makes very well thought out and researched arguements. He proves himself time and time again to highly intellectual and much more reliable than you, who very clearly ignores everything that doesn't suit their idealolgy. I should point out that politically im rather indifferent to the monarchy, other than being a failsafe on tyranny they serve no purpose to me other than the money they generate, if it could be proven they are a drain on the country I would oppose their existance.
I dare you to do the same, ask anyone foreign what's the first thing they think of when they think of the UK, I guarantee most of them will say the Queen. Thanks for avoiding the argument by the way, you could always try to say what else is the first thing people from other countries think of when they think of the UK.
Nice of you to quote against yourself, all that says is the commissioners have full management control over the lands once handed over, it says nothing about the monarchy not owning the land itself.
Neither actaully, only in your idealology do we have the right to take them morally, we have the right to tax the shit out wealth generated I agree with that, but not theft of private property. Legally, see above response to your quote that proves nothing.
As for the "fan-fiction" comment, I simply gave an extreme scenario, your focusing on the wrong damn part in order to make me sound crazy, how Fox News of you. My point is the monarchy offers an alternative authority for the people to rally behind in an extreme scenario, in order to maintain democracy. It's far better to have an unelected, powerless, politically neutral with no real power head of state than an elected one who strictly follows an idealology who can wield signifcant power which can lead ot corruption or cause severe problems in the politcal process, such as in Russia and the USA respectively. FYI to replace the monarch with communist dictator would not work better, they would be politically biased and actually wield their power. You're objections to the monarchy aren't even based in support of democracy anyway, you're arguing against one institution that's unelected but has no real power in favour of another that's unelected and wields extreme power. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT | |
Technically, the Queen has veto power over any law Parliament passes, but it's never used. So, she's more or less like the Norwegian Royals.