You talk of the monarchy as if it is some power-hungry entity. The monarchy is made is made up of human beings like you and I. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that the current monarchy condones slaughter and wars. Every Royal has the choice to denounce his/her title but the monarchy still goes on. In fact, if enough people denounce the throne, then you and I are in the running for becoming King of England. It's just a title and holds no power as it rightly so.
You talk of getting with the 21st century but it seems like you are the one living in the past. See the royal family for what they truly are, a tourism pull, rather than criticising them on things you couldn't possibly know about.
How exactly are we opressed by the monarchy? They have no influence on the government or the economy. Have a look at Lenin and Stalin (your heroes [img]http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]) unelected dictators, and they didn't even bring any tourists in. The Queen is not a political figure which is why replacing her with a president is not a sensible option. Think of all the waxworks that would have to be removed from Madame Tussauds!
firstly Stalin was about as much a communist as Hitler, he wouldn’t know what communism was if it came up and bit his hand. Lennin didn’t hold elections, as in most countries in a similar time of ‘change-over’, there were things to be done first to stablise the country to allow an election. and as i have said before communism is meant to rely upon democracy as much as capitalism, but as has been shown it usually spawns dictators. (if you want it explained i will do so in the politics forum)
anyway, i’m not living in the past i’m trying to live in a better and more democratic country. surely it would be more democratic to elect our head of state rather than let nature choose him or her for us. as you said every royal has the right to abdicate or drop their title, so why don’t they? they don’t because they like the attention and the money. if it was really that hard a lifestyle, the occasional charity work the vast government aid the choice to delcare whatever tax return you think is resonable, the royals would have quit years ago. the fact still remains that they haven’t and they are clinging onto power till they are removed.
i’m also pretty sure that the next question will be, wouldn’t you stick at it for that much money? no i wouldn’t, i would find it offensive that would be paid tax payers money in such quantities, am unelected and i would have the chance to get out but i am sacrificing my ethics for the sake of a large pay packet.
i’m not sure you understand what president i mean, yes you can have an executive one, but it would much more beneficial to have a non-executive one. they hold the same power as the royal family, but as act in line with the house of lords (i also really don’t like the names “house of lords/commons”, it’s in exactly the same vien of thought, but i’ll leave that for another day), and work as a head of the house of lords, who should all be elected as it disgracful to have the country still being run, to a certain capacity, but unelected peers. in that capacity they still open hospitals as the royals do, but they don’t waste money on pointless world tours and drain away £1.5million a year.
If we're talking politics then I'm sure you'll agree that the Royals do not have any form of power in a political sense. Power, in politics, is at a simplistic level, the ability to get others to do things that they would not otherwise do. According to this definition therefore the Royals do not have any form of power because there is nothing they can get you to do if you don't want to.
My personal opinion, is that they bring in tourism, do lots of charity work, smile and wave, give us a sense of heritage and generally do no harm. £1.5 million is nothing and would be far outweighed by the tourism they bring in. They carry no power therefore it doesn't matter that they are born into their position. It's very different from the House of Lords because they actually have a say in the political decisions of our country. Royalty is also not undemocratic and I'm fairly sure a referendum would actually go in their favour.
Finally macca, if you really hate the Queen, post some weed in a Royal Mail letter box, techinically anything in those things is property of the Queen so you can get her done on drugs' charges [img]http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img]
[This message has been edited by alex (edited 10 January 2002).]
alex, i’m shocked at your disregard for the real royalty, such a waste putting it in a ost box.
i’ve pretty much used all the arguements against the queen by now and so have those against, so errrrrrr yeah kinda over. anyone want to sum it all up?
“It is the fool who says in his heart that a debate is finished after only 20 posts on a UBB forum.” -2002
This debate has been going on for YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS. How naive it would be to assume we had covered it in this humble set of messages. As with all philosophy, no answers will be posted here, only ideas and opinions, and each of us will take from it what we wish and formulate our own philosophies. That’s the beauty of it!
sorry to dampen this whole topic, it was a great read and well i must say that people have dug their trenches rather deep on this one, but if u want a summary macca, i will have to say…you don’t like the royal family, others do…its your choice to not like them…but remember it’s considered treason if you talk out against the queen or even go against the British empire?! (if that exists)
what i am saying is that…you don’t like her, learn to live with it…she’s gonna die sometime!
macca this is about the royals…where does the idealogy of communisium fit in?
aside from the topic heading, i will have to admit that communisium has irs advantages (in a pure form)…however i will say that human nature wouldn’t allow it to prosper that long! so a mixture of communisium and capatialism would be a far better idealogy!
i’m not a pro capatialist, but i believe in the idea of food for the people, jobs for the people and equality!
that socialism in a very simplified form, the state works for the people, and vice-versa, but the state doesn’t run everything, it does run the NHS etc. socialism is the balance, i am more pro-socialism as i realised very quickly after thinking communism was wonderful that it is very impractical, that was about 5 years ago.
dead but stuffed so the public will be fooled in to thinking shes still alive. note how her facial expression is always the same and she moves like someone has a malfunctioning joy stick to control her with
Surely you’re all missing the point?
If the royalty are politically powerless, then they should be removed and replaced with something better (and more democratic).
If the royalty had any political power, then equally they should be replaced.
If they’re good for tourism, then leave them intact but you may as well delete their nominal political powers.
Surely you’re all missing the point?
If the royalty are politically powerless, then they should be removed and replaced with something better (and more democratic).
If the royalty had any political power, then equally they should be replaced.
If they’re good for tourism, then leave them intact but you may as well delete their nominal political powers.
i dont think were missing the point at all. we already have something better than the royal family… the government believe it or not. so why should we get rid of the royal family and replace them with something equal to the government and create all sorts of hideous social and economic problems.
also… the queen does have political power. all laws have to be passed by her before they can be put in to action. i dont know why but thats the way it is. im sure she has other uses than just being grey haired and smiling a lot at the lower classes and patronising them.
im not a fan of the royal family. but i kind of like them being around. were the envy of america cus we have culture. lets keep it that way. even if its just for fun.
Tradition does not equal 'good'!
Some fantastic traditions that have needed reforming have included slavery, not allowing various sectors of society the vote, cannibalism, capital punishment, torture...
The monarchy should play no role in government because they are not elected.
It's as simple as that.
Oh, and didn't Stalin and Hitler both have grey hair by the end of their lives?
What nice old men they were!
a royal dies, she did very little charity work (even by their standards) yet when the commentators speak of her, they call her a “devoted servant of her country”. i have probably done more chairity/demonstration work than her. i’m sorry but princess margret was not a devoted servant of the UK, she took tax payers money and spent most of her time on holiday, in my eyes she won’t be missed.
I’m going to sound like a bit of a Margaret fan here, which I’m not especially (can’t say I knew her) but I think the royals do far more charity crap than people realise. I actually feel rather sorry for her because she lived a completely constrained life and never fit the traditional mould of a royal, so it was all a bit gutting. But she’s dead now, her own fault for smoking too much, and I don’t tend to get especially sad about old folks dying - they’ve had a life.
Not many people have mentioned what a crap time most royals have - they can’t marry who they like (e.g. Prince Charles and Princess Margret), they can’t smoke dope without front page articles being written on you (e.g. our Harry), you can’t even go to University without an increase of American girls applying to same university! They have no private life. I think 1 million pounds a year for a public real-life soap opera with lots of Charity work (because they do so much, whether you like it or not) and hoodwinking lots of tourists into thinking Britain is the place to bring your camera and piss off the locals and spending loads of money into the bargain, is definately worth it!
Personally, I think that if it is ever decided that the monarchy should be abolished (and I don’t think it should be, for the record), it should be for the sake of the future royals’ private lives rather than to take away the little power that they do have.
By the way, someone mentioned that they do have political power - what rubbish - if they refused to pass a bill they wouldn’t last a week “in power” - they would be forced to abdicate. I can’t remember the last time a royal blocked a bill or similar (I am thousands of years old), it did happen, but the royal in question I seem to remember had to change his or her mind. Sommat like that.
it doesn’t matter if they have little power it is still power and based upon undemocratic powers, this is inheiritantly wrong. if their life was so hard i’m sure they could quite easily stop taking tax payers money and move out of the country. untill then they are just rich people getting richer off the backing of the state and not giving a hoot as to what is happening in the real world. as for charity work, posing for the odd camera shot or cutting red ribbons - oh the horror the sheer horror. i’d like to see them do real charity work, spend 16 hours of actual work and find out what it is to use your hands for things other than rolling a bifta.
as for marget dying, bo-hoo what a big contributor she was. she was a work shy alocholic who couldn’t even run a bath. and her burial will be paid for by the state out of memory for her hard work. it’s about time that the royals spent their own money instead of living off the rest of us.