Whilst not having posted for quite a while, I thought this was just the intelligent, thoughtful environment to come to with this. (Don't look at me like that......flattery's a legitimate method of achieving one's ends, all right? And I [i:649d8fb5ca]was[/i:649d8fb5ca] actually being serious.) Personally, the concept of being a "subject" instead of a citizen, of having to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen if called so to do, and of my government being Her Majesty's Government, passing laws first checked by her, both appals and bemuses me. The arguments for removing the monarchy are sensibly and concisely put here: http://www.republic.org.uk/theissues/index.htm For those that agree (and I'd be interested to hear from those who don't), please, please sign this petition to make your feelings heard: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/republic/ Many thanks.
I'm a monarchist, in that way I think our Royal Court (that's the Swedish Court, can't speak for the British Court) do a lot of good for our country in terms of PR, which I think a president wouldn't handle as well. Also, our royal family is not as filled with scandals as I'm led to believe the British is. In Sweden, our King is the head of state, but he has no formal power. He gets to open our parliament every autumn and a few similar ceremonial tasks, but he isn't allowed to vote. Of course, he has a tremendous power over the public opinion. Were he to express his opinions in say the hunting of wolves for agricultural reasons I'm sure he would affect the opinions of many people. Still, this power comes from being a very respected public figure and not from any special powers he may be granted as a king. I believe this respect is something he has earned and cultivated throughout his years as our monarch. I don't like the idea of having a president, as I think a presidency holds too much power in one single person. A prime minister on the other hand has very much power but is technically supposed to delegate more of his responsibility to his government than a president is. But it's not a simple yes or no question. Supporting a Royal Court has it's costs, and if this court doesn't behave in a way that benefits it's country, it's not as easily justified. Edit: I consider our form of government no less a democracy than say Germany or the Czech Republic.
Paris Hilton is America's version of royalty (according to her at least). But seriously. Since I live in a so-called democratic contry, don't really know. Although with this regime we have now, it's almost like a monarchy. The boy who would be king. Some achive greatness, some have greatnesss thrust upon then, and some get it for a graduation gift.
I have to agree with KK here. Whilst I'm not a hardcore monarchist, the Royal Family here are harmless and manage to create a lot of money for the UK through tourism. Ask an average foreigner what a feature of Britain is and they'll probably say "The Queen" or "The Royals". All of the Queen's powers are ceremonial, she has no way to veto or propose a law other than in the same manner as the rest of us - make a suggestion to a member of parliament. Parliament (our elected representatives) make and break our laws, not the Queen. She only gets the chance to have a look at them before the rest of us. Parliament decide who receives Honours and Peerages, not the Queen. She only gets to award them in the ceremony. If you were asked to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen and you refused, nothing would happen*. If the Queen came into your house and ordered you around and you refused, she wouldn't be able to force you. Being called a 'subject' and 'Her Majesty's Government' are purely ceremonial and part of the great tourist trap, they mean nothing outside of that. We have as free a democracy as America with their president, we elect our law-makers in (nearly) the same way they do. It's silly to compare the Queen with a president, as they have completely different powers. The only real argument I can see to get rid of the royals is that they cost us money in terms of upkeep, but I would counter that by saying that they bring in more money through tourism. I don't have access to the finances, but I'm pretty sure that if they were such a huge financial drain, the government (being mainly penny pinchers) would soon find a reason to get rid of them and propose a constitution change. *except you might not get into the forces, for they are asked to swear to protect "Queen and country", but the important bit is the country.
anyone who's not rich lives under a dictatorship. if you're rich enough, people can't tell you what to do anymore. if you aren't rich enough, somebody's got power over you. god save the queen. (cause she can't save herself?)
I agree with Electric_Man and KaptenKaries, they've already said most of what I would have done anyway.
Somewhat related, this is from todays Dagens Nyheter, a Swedish newspaper. Doggy translation by me. [quote:4913f18385="DN"]Sweden is the world's most democratic country. This conclusion is drawn by renowned British paper Economist. It's analyze unit, Economist Intelligence Unit, has reviewed 167 of the world's states from a democratic viewpoint and scored them. Sweden wins, with 9.88 points out of 10. - A nearly perfect democracy, establishes Economist. After that comes Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Finland. Economist's analytics has reviewed how electional system and andministration works, political participation, political culture and citizen rights. The result is a democracy-index, where the nordic countries distinguish themselves.[/quote:4913f18385] Full story here (only in Swedish I'm afraid).
Damn swedes... Gorgeous blonde women, Volvos and Saabs, sauna culture, national health and now it turns out they're the most democratic country. Where do I sign up for immigration?
Ok I'm not too sure about this so if anyone could chip in and evaluate thatd be great, but would a monarchy be much more suceptable to corruption? After all the one person incharge is much easier to bribe than (theoretically) the many people running a democratic government? A friend told me that England and canada are supposed to be the most uncorupt countries in the world... personally I don't believe that and have no idea where he got it from, but it'd be nice if it were true. Or rather distressing.
Dane, I think what we're discussing here are constitutional monarchies, the kind where the monarch has little or no real power. And a republic isn't corruption proof either, Italy is a good example where the president holds control over the largest media networks.
Harmless in deed? Most certainly. Entirely ceremonial in function? Quite clearly. It's the concept I'm violently opposed to, the principle of the thing. That might sound ridiculously naive, impractical and wishy-washy, but I think principles matter. For one person, one [i:4f6a67fb3a]family[/i:4f6a67fb3a] to be seen as better than all others (because that's what it is, isn't it? an innate superiority? why the hell else have them?) is insane. Isn't that against everything this country is supposed to stand for? Everything [i:4f6a67fb3a]every[/i:4f6a67fb3a] country should surely stand for? [quote:4f6a67fb3a] Ask an average foreigner what a feature of Britain is and they'll probably say "The Queen" or "The Royals". [/quote:4f6a67fb3a] ..............and do you think that's a good thing? Wouldn't it be nice to be known for something real and constructive and positive that we've given the world, instead of for a facade of jewels and fur and historical rituals, with some poor kids who didn't choose to be born into the Family Windsor stuck behind the whole lot, to be oggled and poked and photographed? To look to the future, instead of always to the godamn past? The revenue from tourism, I grant you, is the most persuasive argument against acting. But if we finally let the royal family go, we'll still have our history, the castles, palaces and whatnot. Tourist'll even be able to explore them further thanks to them being vacated. We'll still have our museums, our art galleries. Maybe we shouldn't rely so heavily on tourism anyway? Get some actual industries up and running again? Sure, other systems are flawed. But the current one is painfully so. However commendably she has handled the absurd position she's in (and most Royals today do, it must be said. simply on the whole because they have no other choice), I object to her "representing" me. [i:4f6a67fb3a]Particularly[/i:4f6a67fb3a] in her role as Defender of the Faith.
I'm apothetic... a monarchy can be just as corrupt and undemocratic as a badly devised and implemented replublic (Russia anyone?). But I do like the thought of what Australia would do if england tossed out the monarchy. For those that don't know we are still a protectorate of england and technically the Queen still has to sign off on all our laws, this is done by the Governor General in her stead and usually this is a ceremonial role. However, in 1972, the GG tossed out the elected government of the day (PM Gough Whitlam) and ordered new elections. So it has more power then a stamp which is kind of scary in a way.
You know, I was thinking of that, Spiky... One way to look at it, Darth (not the way that I would, mind) is that the constitutional monarch is the physical representation, the avatar if you will, of your nation.
Unless we go to war, the (swedish) King has no formal power, but as KK said, many people look up to him and think that his opinions are good opinions. This can be both good and bad, but fortunately for us the King knows this and tries to stay out of politics, ie he doesn't side with any of the political parties. Which he shouldn't, because that'd be cheating. Some people claim that monarks have no place in a modern state, but they do, if only as PR and foreground persons, they are still valuable members of the country's history and culture. And a democracy can only be a democracy while the people within it are well educated and taken care of. No form of government is impervious to corruption. As our new head of state learnt...
[quote:134542929f="Bradthewonderllama"]One way to look at it, Darth (not the way that I would, mind) is that the constitutional monarch is the physical representation, the avatar if you will, of your nation.[/quote:134542929f] That quite neatly expresses a thought I was trying to formulate. I'm not sure it's what I think, but it is a point of view that I think is valid. I am inclined to agree with the pro-monarchy opinions expressed in this thread. Darth, do you think principle is more important than pragmatism? By which I mean, if you got rid of the monarchy over the matter of principle, and it turned out that the result was disastrous for Britain, would it have been a good decision? Some people I know were arguing about the monarchy a few years ago, and I found what one guy said so interesting that I saved it. NB This is [i:134542929f]not[/i:134542929f] my opinion (although it is close to it), but I thought it made some valid points: [quote:134542929f]OK Sam, here's an argument in favour of the Royal Family: You no doubt ask "what do they actually DO for the country?". Well, even laying aside the usual arguments of bringing in tourists (the rest of the world likes them more than most of us) and being national figureheads, there is one all-pervading reason why we should keep the Royals. Ask not what they do, rather what they CAN'T do (start World War III for one thing). Although the Queen is officially (unelected) Head of State, she doesn't carry much real power. By the same token though, she acts as a brake on the power-crazed goons of the political world. Now look at the USA. Pretzel Boy wasn't elected head of state by the majority of the population either. BUT: 1) He's a half-wit. 2) He's got supreme power over the U.S. (and therefore, let's be honest, the world) and an itchy trigger-finger. 3) He's in the pockets of the oil companies. 4) Tony Blair (the man who would be in charge if no Queen) appears to want to BE him (or at least his best friend). If it's a choice between a powerless monarch I didn't vote for, or a megalomaniac politician I didn't vote for (assuming Charles Kennedy wouldn't get the job!) then I'm with the monarch. If that's not convincing enough imagine this scenario: Late 1970s, Royal Family abolished. Nation cheers as Margaret Thatcher elected first President of the UK. What fun we would have had eh? God Save The Queen. And Prince Charles. love, Damian[/quote:134542929f] (Not our Damien or any of our Sams.) The point is that the alternative to a monarch is a leader with a political affiliation, economic debts and obligations, and lobby groups on all sides. Yes, we have that in a Prime Minister - as many other countries do in their Presidents - but we also have the all-important [i:134542929f]check[/i:134542929f] on that leader by putting a leader above him whose sole interest is in representing and protecting the people of the UK. I'm all for that. I'd rather have the Queen stand for me than any political leader.
I wouldn't mind a king or queen if they truly were the parents of the nation, that is, like the Swedish king, who is respected and looks out for everyone. The last king of the Athenian city-state was Kodros. When the Doriaeans (the tribe that would populate Macedonia and most of the Peloponnese) had Athens (an ionian city) under siege, the Delphi Oracle said that the city would be spared only if the king died. Th Doriaeans went out of their way not to harm Kodros, so he dressed up as a beggar, went up to the enemy camp and picked a fight with a guard that had him killed. When the Doriaeans realised what the guard had done, they broke camp and took off, while the Athenians abolished monarchy on the grounds that no king would ever be like Kodros. And they had a point. The kings we had from 1832 till 1975 left much to be desired.
