Should the monarchy be abolished?

[Cardsfan]

Prompted by the recent milestone, thought this would be an interesting point of discussion.

A definite yes from me, because of the cost to the taxpayer and the fundamentally flawed system of genetics leading to power and wealth.

 

[RavenBish]

So you'd abolish literally anyone born into money then.

Cost to the taxpayer is a fucking appalling argument.

Consider yourself DEBUNKED.

 

[HertsWolf]

Prompted by the recent milestone, thought this would be an interesting point of discussion.

A definite yes from me, because of the cost to the taxpayer and the fundamentally flawed system of genetics leading to power and wealth.

So what is this "cost to the taxpayer"?
Out of interest, how much have you contributed to the tax of this country? And how much has been spent on you so far by the taxpayer?

 

[TheArtfulDodger]

Yes. Absolutely, you can't be a democratic society when one family is put above all others based on birth. Get rid and join our peers in the modern world.

 

[Gladders]

No, and cost to taxpayer is a rubbish argument.

 

[Alty]

Yes. Absolutely, you can't be a democratic society when one family is put above all others based on birth. Get rid and join our peers in the modern world.

Yes, let's move away from the system used in such undemocratic hell-holes as Denmark and the Netherlands so we can get ourselves a George W Bush or Jacques Chirac as Head of State.

Good grief.

 

[TheArtfulDodger]

Yes, let's move away from the system used in such undemocratic hell-holes as Denmark and the Netherlands so we can get ourselves a George W Bush or Jacques Chirac as Head of State.

Good grief.

Yes, because that is what you have to elect. We don't need a symbolic representative. We can do it just fine with elected bodies of power, the Prime Minister is the effective ruler as it is, subject to the people. It has no role in a democratic society.

Not surprised you love the Queen though, you melt.

 

[Alty]

Yes, because that is what you have to elect. We don't need a symbolic representative. We can do it just fine with elected bodies of power, the Prime Minister is the effective ruler as it is, subject to the people. It has no role in a democratic society.

Not surprised you love the Queen though, you melt.

The monarchy is a link to our a past, a symbol of our organic transition to democracy. And in terms of international relations it's actually quite advantageous to have an apolitical Head of State.

The fact that the monarchy is still something real and meaningful is still a huge selling point in terms of tourism to the UK too.

Plus calling stuff 'Royal', whether it's a club or a building or a university or a hospital, just sounds cool.

No need to get rid of it. Keep as is.

 

[TheArtfulDodger]

The monarchy is a link to our a past, a symbol of our organic transition to democracy. And in terms of international relations it's actually quite advantageous to have an apolitical Head of State.

The fact that the monarchy is still something real and meaningful is still a huge selling point in terms of tourism to the UK too.

Plus calling stuff 'Royal', whether it's a club or a building or a university or a hospital, just sounds cool.

No need to get rid of it. Keep as is.

The tourism point is negligible, people will still come irrespective of whether some old bat is sat in her kecks somewhere behind the walls. I

f you want to call yourself a true democracy you simply cannot have a family (let's not forget all the blue bloods we put up with too) that is placed on a pedestal based on their blood, it is a total non-sequitur. I see literally no benefit in having them and it contradicts any argument about creating a genuine democracy. There are a lot of other problems surrounding class in our country that are pressing, but this is very clear and distinct bracket of society which can be dismantled.

I think it would be a good step forward/.

 

[Martino Knockavelli]

The monarchy is a link to our a past, a symbol of our organic transition to democracy.

Cholera is a link to our a past [sic], and infecting a few bairns with it every now and then is an important symbol of our organic transition to rudimentary sanitation.

 

[Alty]

Cholera is a link to our a past [sic], and infecting a few bairns with it every now and then is an important symbol of our organic transition to rudimentary sanitation.

Very, very clever. The way you've picked up on my typo makes me look a right twat. Kudos.

 

[Alty]

You've put the [sic] in the wrong place, by the way.

 

[Martino Knockavelli]

Thanks.

 

[Martino Knockavelli]

Thanks retracted. And no I haven't. Perfectly acceptable usage to insert it at the end of the relevant clause/passage/etc when the error is so calamitous as to render the whole unintelligible.

 

[Craig]

Get rid of the benefit scroungers.

 

[mnb089mnb]

Can't believe that anyone's suggesting removing the monarchy on today of all days.

Fucking sick if you ask me.

Can a mod remove it please?

GSTQ

 

[Alty]

FTP.

 

[smat]

Yes, less out of any kind of ill-feeling towards the royal family (tho I decline to make that a proper noun), and more to upset all the Royalist Twats.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Yes, less out of any kind of ill-feeling towards the royal family (tho I decline to make that a proper noun), and more to upset all the Royalist Twats.

Largely this. These sort of people are just the worst...

Generally don't really give a FIG though. Quite like Liz.

 

[smat]

Yes and

 

[blade1889]

Not at all for me.

Tax argument...from what I can tell they bring in more than they cost. Be it through tourism or campaigns abroad to bring in investment. There will never be accurate figures to put this argument to bed though, sadly.

Charity, princes trust committed 47million to charitable causes in the last accounts (2012/2013). As well as the Invictus games.

Born in to wealth...so we should just have 100% inheritance taxes then?

Privileged position...hand on heart I'd hate to do what they do. Its not just a normal full time job, they do it 24/7 for their entire lives. I'd hate to be in the public view so much, my life is cosy in comparison.

Democratic argument...this is a stupid argument, sorry. Its merely a technicality. Sure the Queen technically appoints the PM and signs off in laws but in practise these are ALL decided democratically. Or maybe we should have president Cameron and have had president Blair lol.

The monarchy have been used as a symbol of our colonialism in the past. And yes that is a huge negative but that is in the past. In the present they benefit this country and many others, greatly. I am proud to have a queen and monarchy that are still held in such high esteem all around the world. My one hope against the monarchy is that Charles skips being King, it should pass to William IMO as I don't think Charles has the same international reputation and would damage the monarchies image.

 

[mnb089mnb]

Not at all for me.

Tax argument...from what I can tell they bring in more than they cost.

It was about time someone looked into it in detail. Glad you've done so.

GSTQ

 

[blade1889]

It was about time someone looked into it in detail. Glad you've done so.

GSTQ

Nice choosing of what to quote and ignoring the part where I said there wont ever be accurate figures for it-you could work for a tabloid with that sort of out-of-context quoting.

I've read lots of arguments today, at the most extreme the whole monarchy cost us 200mill but bring in up to 700mill and that doesn't include through building international ties or their charity work. At the opposite end they cost 50mill and bring in 100.

 

[RavenBish]

Yes. Absolutely, you can't be a democratic society when one family is put above all others based on birth

Yet somehow we are. Miraculous.

 

[GodsGift]

I can take them or leave them but let's be honest, if a referendum was held tomorrow the public would vote overwhelmingly in favour of keeping them. As long as they don't interfere in government then I've got no real issue with them.

 

[Murphy]

I'd rather we remove Lord Cameron and the Tory's.

(Political party, not a 70s punk rock band)

 

[Martino Knockavelli]

Yet somehow we are. Miraculous.

Until, for example, one of the Eloi (one with big ears and a demented fixation on the sacred harmony of classic geometries, say) decides he doesn't like a building produced by a democratic planning process, throws his HRH-ish weight around, and gets something rather more to his liking knocked up in its stead, because, well, he's The Prince. A miraculous transubstantiation of symbolic power into actual. And they say they aren't divine!

 

[mnb089mnb]

Nice choosing of what to quote and ignoring the part where I said there wont ever be accurate figures for it-you could work for a tabloid with that sort of out-of-context quoting.

I've read lots of arguments today, at the most extreme the whole monarchy cost us 200mill but bring in up to 700mill and that doesn't include through building international ties or their charity work. At the opposite end they cost 50mill and bring in 100.

Maybe we could enlarge the monarchy? Have more hereditary positions in society. Pay £1bn to get back £2bn.

I'm not sure the tourism angle really holds true. The sites of interest in our country such as Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle would still have a lot of visitors even if we had a hugely scaled down monarchy or scrapped it altogether (should also be remembered that Legoland is still the number 1 tourist destination in Windsor). Also, tourists still visit Versailles in Paris even though they dealt with their monarchy a while ago.

I'm not hugely bothered by the monarchy either way, however some of the coverage today from the likes of Nicolas Witchell has been embarrassing. Verging on The Day Today territory. I'm baffled by it.

 

[blade1889]

Maybe we could enlarge the monarchy? Have more hereditary positions in society. Pay £1bn to get back £2bn.

I'm not sure the tourism angle really holds true. The sites of interest in our country such as Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle would still have a lot of visitors even if we had a hugely scaled down monarchy or scrapped it altogether (should also be remembered that Legoland is still the number 1 tourist destination in Windsor). Also, tourists still visit Versailles in Paris even though they dealt with their monarchy a while ago.

I'm not hugely bothered by the monarchy either way, however some of the coverage today from the likes of Nicolas Witchell has been embarrassing. Verging on The Day Today territory. I'm baffled by it.

Very flippant first point which I'm sure you understand why it wouldn't work.

Of course they will still have visitors, just as unoccupied castles do. That will be scaled down though, to what extent we can only hypothesise. And true figures can never be known as the knock -on effects to restaurants, hotels, even the west end couldn't be predicted. Often overlooked in the economic argument is the work the monarchy does abroad in promoting the UK for tourism and international links for trad of goods & services. Which, again, will be considerable and impossible to predict.

 

[RavenBish]

Until, for example, one of the Eloi (one with big ears and a demented fixation on the sacred harmony of classic geometries, say) decides he doesn't like a building produced by a democratic planning process, throws his HRH-ish weight around, and gets something rather more to his liking knocked up in its stead, because, well, he's The Prince. A miraculous transubstantiation of symbolic power into actual. And they say they aren't divine!

Corruption is the price we pay for democracy. Discuss.