It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pro/Anti-Monarchy

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   
For the citizens of the UK...

I'm curious to know if you are for keeping the monarchy, or doing away with it. (Not even sure if its "possible" to do away with it.).

If you are for or against, please state your reasons why.

Thanks in advance for the enlightenment.




posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
I support the monarchy at this present time, my opinion isn't set in stone though as the next monarch is anyone's guess.

When our current Monarch (may she live many more years) passes away I believe it will be a potential turning point for the Monarchy.
If Prince Charles takes the throne I can see it losing popularity with the public, however if Prince William takes the throne I can see the public maintaining its support around about its current level.

If the monarchy is to be removed its going to be many, many generations before anything ever happens, if ever.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   
As a staunch republican I do find it surprising that I am occasionally asked to explain why I hold that position, surprising simply because I find it quite inexplicable that in the early years of the twenty first century any rational person can support a hereditary monarchy in a supposedly sophisticated western democracy.

No one can provide me with any reasonable argument as to why they should be retained, no one is able to explain why we as subjects, (note, we are not citizens), should continue to pay hundreds of millions of pounds every year to support the lifestyle of a group of dysfunctional aristocrats who are already almost unimaginably wealthy in their own right.

They serve absolutely no constructive purpose whatever and yet we are required to pay for them to have a thoroughly good time so that the poor lambs do not have to pay for it themselves - no wonder they remain so rich really is it?

All of this because our present monarch can trace her ancestry back through some occasionally dubious means to some ancient warlord who had a bigger and tougher army than all the others.

Good isn't it?



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   
The Monarchy will last as long as Queen Elizabeth II or the 1st as we call her in Scotland Lives. Once she goes, then there will be big changes, Although alot have warmed towards Camilla, I still dont think we want her as queen. Charlieon the other hand, he is all for mordenising the monarchy more.

Once she goes Ill guarantee you, there will be those who want a republic will make their voices heard.

I for one will continue to support the Monarchy, if they cut back on the hanger on's such as the junior royals who serve no purpose, what so ever, rather than smonge of taxpayers money, then they would have alot more support.

Either way I would rather have the royal family, than have a president blair or brown, or a elected politician an President In Office.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
The Monarchy will last as long as Queen Elizabeth II or the 1st as we call her in Scotland Lives. Once she goes, then there will be big changes


- I agree.

It is all open to question once QE2 (or as you say 1 in Scotland) goes.

I don't ever see King Charles 3 ever being 'popular'...... and his Queen Camilla!? No way will she be accepted as such by a majority of 'the people'.


Either way I would rather have the royal family, than have a president blair or brown, or a elected politician an President In Office.


- This is the bit I just can't understand.

Cos what this boils down to is saying one would rather have a person imposed upon you by sheer accident of birth and an ultra privileged background (who necessarily will, because of this highly unusual background, never truly have empathy with lives of 99% of his/her 'subjects'......hmmmmm to choose to be classed as mere Royal property, no thanks) than make that choice yourself!?

Why not? That seems totally illogical to me.

I'd rather not have had a President Thatcher, but if that was the democratic choice of the people then as a democrat I'd accept that that would be that......for the 4 or 5yr term until the next time the public makes the choice.

Also assuming we had a sensible term limit arrangement of no more than 2 or 3 terms.

We also have no good reason to choose an American style President (and considering they would be ceremonial and replacing Monarchy it would seem to me to be wholly inappropriate).
We would be far more likely (and wise) to choose a much more European (excepting France) style President.
It's a totally different concept.

I think we're mature enough to make our own choices (and even the occasional mistake) than rely on some dark ages or medieval 'thinking'.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Either way I would rather have the royal family, than have a president blair or brown, or a elected politician an President In Office.


This is an old argument trotted out time and again by the monarchists and an entirely fallacious one.

As sminkey has already said, it is quite absurd to be concerned about the prospect of a President Blair, Brown or whichever politician you care to choose and yet be satisfied with the imposition of a monarch whose only qualification for office is an accident of birth.

What is always ignored, however, is that the British Prime Minister already carries far more effective power than a US President, (or any other that I can think of in a democracy), by virtue of almost certainly being the leader of the largest party in Parliament and probably with a whippable absolute majority. In effect, we already have a "President" Blair just as we had "President" Thatcher.

But fear not, the best bit of all is that we don't need a President at all. We are always assured that the Monarch has no effective power anyway, (although this argument is somewhat flawed), and the only replacement actually required is a written constitution to remove the need for the historical powers the Queen currently holds with regard to the Royal Assent, the perogative of choosing a Prime Minister and one or two other constitutional odds and ends.


Charlie on the other hand, he is all for mordenising the monarchy more.

At this stage we need to be very afraid. Modernising a hereditory monarchy is something akin to modernising a neanderthal, neither has any place in a modern world. What Charles means is that he wants to change the role of the Monarch so that he does have an input to political affairs thus completely destroying the last vestige of a defence for retaining the institution in the first place.

We should remove them now and pack them off into retirement in exile, if they don't want to go there is an alternative process for which there is prededent...





[edit on 30-11-2006 by timeless test]



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   
we are older enough as a Country to elect our Leaders.

The Monarchy is pointless.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I myself am pretty patriotic, and to look at me - and perhaps the other 60 million of us in this country, I have nothing in common at all with the Monarchy, but yet I am strangely in favour of keeping them.

The tradition and history that the Monarchy has been part of and ultimately shaped has made our nation what it is today, and to take it away, takes away a big part of the heart of our Great Nation.

But...

It does anger me how rich they all are, for doing relatively nothing at all. I think perhaps their income should be capped? Or something along those lines, or perhaps be given a more active role, because at the moment all they seem to do is turn up to the odd charity event or open the occasional Royal Park (I may get shot down for the latter but its what it looks to me, and to many others in this country)

So overall, keep the monarchy - for the time being. And make them do/give more back to the people who keep them there!



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by UKTruthSeeker
The tradition and history that the Monarchy has been part of and ultimately shaped has made our nation what it is today


Our nation, and many others around the world, certainly owe much of their culture and nature to the British monarchy, it has, undeniably been a powerful force and not always a bad one. Similar "forces" that have shaped and influenced our cultures have been many and various, some good, some wicked but all powerful, For example:

Paganism
The class system
The steam engine
Feudalism
Slavery

But like these, its time has come and gone, it remains because of tradition only.

Tradition; the rule of the dead over the living; paying respect to the will of those who have gone rather than those who are still with us; clinging to past glories rather than dealing with current problems.


[edit on 14-12-2006 by timeless test]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Once Lizzy has gone, its a republic.

No one will want Charles as King and Parliament will do everything it can to restrict the powers of the Monarcy and reforming the House of Lords into a Senate.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Once Lizzy has gone, its a republic.

No one will want Charles as King and Parliament will do everything it can to restrict the powers of the Monarcy and reforming the House of Lords into a Senate.


Sadly, I do not share your optimism. Parliament will need Charles to do something really stupid in order to turn public support against not only him but his heirs and the system as well and I cannot see that happening for some years after his mum has gone.

The main battleground will be in stopping Charles, (or George VI as I understand he will be titled), from expressing political opinions publically and becoming actively involved in matters that are none of his business.

If, of course, he lives that long.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Well, all the three mainstream parties want Parliament to gain the Monarchy's power and for Parliament to appoint a Prime Minister (not the Queen).



Parliament will need Charles to do something really stupid in order to turn public support against not only him but his heirs and the system as well and I cannot see that happening for some years after his mum has gone.


His ex-wife is still over the news and many point the finger at him for her death.

IF he sticks to his words and gets involved in giving public opinions by sticking his nose in government work, he won't last 5 minutes.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Well, all the three mainstream parties want Parliament to gain the Monarchy's power and for Parliament to appoint a Prime Minister (not the Queen).


This really is an absolute essential if we are to have any confidence or even pride in our democracy. I'm quite sure that it will come but probably as part of a full written constitution which will not be a quick process.



His ex-wife is still over the news and many point the finger at him for her death.

A side issue I think. The ever fickle public is already beginning to accept Camilla and the conspiracies surrounding his ex lack serious credibility.


IF he sticks to his words and gets involved in giving public opinions by sticking his nose in government work, he won't last 5 minutes.

Agreed, but the key issue will be to change this from an anti Charles affair to an anti monarchy issue. His photogenic son will have to be knobbled as well.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
If the Union breaks up then there is no question that the monarchy will go.

Scotland will not keep it, Wales and Northern Ireland are 100% sure not to and England will follow suit.

Republics will be much better for us than a Unity State with a Monarchy.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 05:05 AM
link   
We never wanted your German queen in Wales



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by dj howls
We never wanted your German queen in Wales


But you guys never had a say



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Monarchy whats the point? the sad thing is that she or her esteemed
family(honestly) gets final say on any law to be passed, the fact that it serves more to the overall British public as a way of generating income from tourism in much the same way that Orlando Florida does
slightly OTT exaggeration but you get what I mean



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   
I've spent most of my life thinking that the monarchy is a waste of time and money. When people rose to their feet to toast the Queen or sing the national anthem (I'm old enough to remember people doing that when I was a kid) it always struck me as ridiculous.

However.

A few years ago I was having a very pleasant conversation with an American lady, a Texan, and very unusual for her milieu, in that she espoused some pretty left-wing views. It was, therefore, all the more perplexing to hear her say, "one of the main reasons I don't like Bush is that I think he makes a really bad father to the nation."

Whether we like it or not, people are not rational. They project all sorts of unconscious desires and needs onto parental figures,

I now think that it's useful to have a monarchy simply because they act as a kind of "lightning rod" for this kind of irrational stuff. It's all very well wanting people to be rational, but you can't just wish it.

If a (reduced) Civil List allowed us the luxury of transferring those kind of unconscious needs onto a "politically neutral" (HA!) monarch, while allowing us to see politicians of all stripes as the weaselly opportunists they certainly are, then it's money relatively well spent IMO.



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I prefer us to have monarchy, for one thing it adds a failsafe to democracy. The lords can delay any act of parliment while the queen has to assent to any peice of legislation passed by the commons and can dissolve it.

To be fair I enjoy knowing that if old tony gest out of line her majesty can send the London regiment knocking old number 10.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Once Lizzy has gone, its a republic.

No one will want Charles as King and Parliament will do everything it can to restrict the powers of the Monarcy and reforming the House of Lords into a Senate.


Charles could quickly abdicate in favour of his son William. Something I would certainly want to see. With the influence his mother still yields over the country, this could be seen as her legacy.

A question - does Charles have to become King and then abdicate or can he simply refuse to become King?

And Yes, I am in favour of the Monarchy.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join