Monarchy or No Monarchy

Before you vote think of the benefits, the protection of the freedom; if the Crown fall off Britain it could easly fall into the hands of a totalitarian, communist parties etc. Everything is underthe Crown, the mail, the police, the courts, civil servents. What if it were all to be gone? OH MY!!

 

You don't really know much about the way our constitutional monarchy works do you?

 

LOL I do its just I made this after a few wines. But I wasnt drunk just to tipsy to put actually correct things. By the way did you vote for the British Republic.

 

Would all of the land and estates in The National Trust be refunded to the Winsdors/ Saxe-Golgatha's

 

No Monarchy and No Government!!! Free the People!!!

 

Yes I did, and though I'll accept that the monarchy does provide some symbolic rallying point guarding against political extremes, it's quite clear that the monarchy in no way affects the daily functioning of institutions such as the mail, the police etc etc. I'm not saying the monarchy is totally irrelevant, and it's not top of my list of political problems, but it is, I feel, unnecessary and we would be better served by an elected head of state and, equally, an elected upper chamber in Parliament....

 

Very interesting Mr Pheonix, I see here you have summed up the Constitutional Monarchy of the United Kingdom quite well. However I disagree with any elected head of state anywhere in the world, as I see the Monarchy doesnt effect my daily life I fail to see how a less traditional less conservitive (not Tory, as in traditional) Head of State would effect my daily life. I live by two rules when it comes to the Monarchy and I come to the same conclusions everytime:

Do I want somebody who WANTS the job.

OR

Somebody who HAS TO HAVE the job.


The other being:

The Constiutional Monarchy is not about; What I want to do with my country, it about what I need to do for my country.

As you can see I being a man of tradition would choose the Monarchy if the cross roads ever came. I admire you opinion though.

 

I dont live in the uk, but my family still does,
I as a U.K citzen born overseas, ....well I FEEL that its important on only a symbolic level.

canada where I live now, and was born. we are still "technicaly" under the rulle of the queen, we still have a governer general...who is a complete waste of skin and money.
she serves only a traditional role as head of state to the queen, although she does hold power over our governments laws, she holds none. if she was to over throw any of our laws we would simpky remove her of power.

The same I feel for the queen though I think she may have more of role in britian then the governer general in canada. if not politically, morally and figurativly. I do not know though do british folk raised in england feel a loyalty to the queen?
even if she holds no power this feeling of loyality and respect.....well is that not her sole purpose? to hold that position of respect?
I do not think she is "needed" persay, though I do admire her position in our minds.

 

What about the idea of an elected royal family? They could do the job for a five year term.

 

The whole point of a monarchy is that the title of King or Queen or Prince etc. is only to be acquired though inheritance. An electable royal family isn't much less possible than dividing by zero.

And because of that, I am against monarchy, because even though the title is mainly symbolical these days, those in power should always be chosen by the people.

I'm Dutch though (I'll leave voting in the poll to the Englishmen and -women), so this isn't really a complaint against the English royal family per se, but still, nobody deserves a place at the head of a state unless they're elected by the people it is to govern, in the Netherlands as well as anywhere in the world.

 

I feel a huge loyalty to my Monarch who ever they be. I think it brings an honourable sign of national pride and identity.

Also I dissagree that the Monarchies functions are only traditional (they are mostly symbolic yes...) and I except that the Monarch plays no 'political' role, however alot resides on the Monarch. I noted somebody put

"if she was to over throw any of our laws we would simpky remove her of power."

This is not so here in the United Kingdom, the Queen is expected not to reject an act of Parliment however if she feel the Government is in any way threatning the freedom or Constitutional role of our Kingdom she will intervene. Canada holding the continuation of the Crown plays an important role in the Commonwealth of Nations, unity, trade etc all of this could prehaps exist without the Crown, but the Crown is involvd and Canadas continuation of holding the Crown supports the Commonwealth of Nations.

I see the Monarchy as protecting our freedom from any outside intuding force. Long may it last.

 

The monarchy is a load of shit. They do nothing for me, or my country, that I'm aware of, and act as an old memento of a bygone Empire. They are the figure heads of tyranny and invasion.

Basically 'we'll civilize you savages, steal your resources, and claim the money. Cheers!'

 

They bring in a lot of tourists with money, which keeps a lot of people in jobs.

I reckon I should be the next sucessor, not Charles or Wills. Id bring in even more tourists with my eccentric weirdness. Id knock down Buckingham palace and build a big earthship in its place. Id also bring in a national day of red, where you had to wear all red or else face being hung, drawn and quartered. The videos of the exectutions would be sold online to liveleak..turning tyranny into a profitable business ...the possibilities are endless!

 

Classic argument, classic fallacy. Britain would not lose out on tourism revenue if we were to abolish the monarchy. In fact, if you were to open the former royal sites to visitors all year round, you would probably stand to gain. France and Russia lost nothing when their monarchs lost their heads and tourists continue to flock to the Palace of Versailles and the Winter Palace....

 

The last time a monarch refused to give royal assent to an act of parliament was Queen Anne in 1707. If the reigning monarch tried to veto something democratically passed by the houses of parliament she would be over-ruled quicker than you can say "pointless elitist sham"...

 

Awwww somebody doesnt know very much about the Monarchy so they. LOL the beer in the picture kinda gives that away.

 

I acknowlage that we recieve money rom the Monarchy, however that is not what it is here for, HM does not swear oaths and vows to get some Amercian taking photos of her. It is all apart of the political system in which our Kingdom runs, and you have to admit....ot works pretty well.

By the way the reason we dont have a writen Constituttion is because our society is based on traditition, including the Monarchy.

 

I still think I should be king. King Ripple of Great Britain. Id give the newspapers something to write about, no more Paris Hilton stories..another benefit.

 

you read about paris in the U.K as well?.....my god!