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.

 

The Monarchy

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Hi everyone!

I'm working on a project, and would appreciate your response to this question: Should Britain do away with the Monarchy and the House of Lords?

Thank you!



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Good question Helen!
I would suggest that you give your thoughts on the subject and its ramifications. This will help to get a dialog going with other members.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 10:03 PM
link   
well, my stand on this issue is this: the monarchy doesn't serve much of a purpose except to beautify events and eat up 50 million pounds a year on too much luxury. the country needs all the funds it can get. why not just trim them down to just people with high-sounding titles? why not just give them a sum of money (maybe a few million pounds) for them to buy themselves a nice comfortable mansion in a nice little town, make them get their own jobs, whatever job they want, all the media attention they crave, and leave them to fend for themselves?

as for the house of lords, they aren't even elected at all, so that means they aren't contributing to democracy. also, they don't do much except to review appeals from the court. therefore they are replaceable.

what do you guys think?



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 04:50 AM
link   
The Monarchy is a great thing. I've posted this before on other threads, but it's worth a bit of a recap I think.

1. By swearing our allegiance to the Queen/King we separate our sense of national pride from the government of the day, making it much harder for an extreme right wing or nationalist government to "hijack" the notion of patriotism to their own ends.

2. Having an independent, non-political head of state is very useful in foreign affairs, helping to engender long term relationships and transcend temporary political disagreements.. i.e. the commonwealth, controlling dictators by satisfying their egos with a royal visit etc.

3. The fact the monarch never makes a political statement means there is a useful political "bombshell" in reserve should the need arise...the rise of a dangerous government for example.

5. The monarch's success, security and way of life is inextricably linked to the the success and security of the UK. It's useful to have someone with that level of international stature and world influence who is also indisputably "on our side".

6. Along with all that, there is of course the fact that our parliamentary democratic system is very much built, or rather evolved, around the monarchy. Having no written constitution, but rather a series of old laws, rules and traditions, means we have a remarkable number of checks and balances to help us avoid problems. The House of Lords for example may be denigrated when it rejects a fox hunting ban for example, but people forget when it stands up for the people of this country... forcing reconsideration of national ID card plans, or overly invasive civil rights abuses.

7. Last but not least, they are a small but significant factor attracting the 11.7 billion pounds spent by foreigners visiting the UK every year. I've read figures describing the costs of the monarchy, ranging from 10 million pounds to 50 million, bet even at the higher figure, this is peanuts when compared to the tourist trade they generate. A company will spend that much advertising one particular brand of soap powder!

You probably guessed I'm bit of a monarchist!



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 06:37 AM
link   
I'm not sure about the UK ridding themselves of the Monarchy. It's upto them, but I forsee quite a protest against such a thing ever happening there.

I can tell you that the majority in Australia could lose them and not bat an eyelid. I guess the same could be said for Canada and New Zealand, but I won't speak for them.

Nothing against ol' Lizzy, but I feel we are on a path towards a Republic. If not now, in the near future. That said, it will never mean we forget our roots. I for one cherish our relationship with the UK.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 07:49 AM
link   
wow good viewpoints!


muppet: maybe it's not immediately obvious to me, but isn't it possible that the people of Britain could elect another group of people to form the new house of lords, or just give their duties to someone else? is it important that they have to be related to the royal family?


cargo: we as in the US or Britain?



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by HelenLyle


Should Britain do away with the Monarchy and the House of Lords?


What's wrong with British monarchy? Queen Elizabeth II and her dynasty didn't do anything bad, in fact they're one of the better dynasties that ever ruled Britain. She's a fair queen.

[edit on 4-10-2004 by AtheiX]



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Sorry, we as in Australia (the 52nd state
)

edit: Australia, Canada and New Zealand (among others) are still under the monarchy and are members of the Commonwealth.



The Imperial Conference of 1926, held in London, confirmed the fully autonomous status of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other overseas Dominions, while stressing that they remained united by a common allegiance to the Crown.


You probably know this but I thought I'd clarify.

[edit on 4-10-2004 by cargo]



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   
I don't think we should do away with the monarchy as such.

They do contribute through tourism. However I beliveve that we should stop FUNDING them. They are wealthy enough and own enough land and residences to sustain themseleves.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by HelenLyle
muppet: maybe it's not immediately obvious to me, but isn't it possible that the people of Britain could elect another group of people to form the new house of lords, or just give their duties to someone else? is it important that they have to be related to the royal family?



The Lords aren't related to the royal family in general (though there a few distant relatives I'd imagine.)

There are different types of Lords, or peers as they are more commonly known. They were originally the old feudal families and landowners. The monarch would call on them pay for wars and raise armies in time of national crisis, and in return they got to have a say in the running of the country. The title, and seat in the House of Lords was passed down through the family.

These hereditary seats have now been scrapped and the Lords is mainly made up of distinguished military, judges, business leaders, ex-prime-ministers, or others who have made notable contributions to society, literature, the arts etc.

They are appointed for life, with a few new ones being added every year as older ones die off.

They don't have that much power. They can delay legislation, and send it back to be re-drafted if it appears badly worded or unfair, but in emergencies the elected government can override them. The only real power is in the hands of the "Law Lords", a subset of peers who are also distinguished judges. These make up our equivalent of the Supreme Court.

Being unelected means that they have no reason to pander to political parties or popular opinion and they can take a more independent, considered view. I personally that's a good thing. We already have one House of regular politicians and I think two who simply obfuscate things.

the relation of all this to the Monarchy question is that to change it would probably require the creation of a constitution, which we've never had, and is one of the reasons our system is so flexible and as lasted the test of time. If it ain't broke, don't fix it and all that!




[edit on 4/10/04 by muppet]



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Well as someone who lives under a queen who resides thousands of miles away from me, I say get rid of it. Many Australians still feel an attachment with Britain, I still have fond feelings of england and i've never been there! Many Australians love the queen and the royal family to this day and tens of thousands of people come to greet her everywhere she goes in our land.

But I believe in an Australian republic. I believe an Australian head of state is logical because the monarchy serves no purpose in our society. All I see is a black hole for British taxpayers.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Lets just say the public decided that they monarchy wasn't really worth it and wanted to disband it along with the house of lords.

By what mechanism could they do this? The supreme authority still rests with the monarch, even if they don't forcefully exercise that power. If the House of Commons passed some law overthrowing them, it would still have to be passed by then house of lords, and after that the Queen would have to give it a pass (sort of like an anti-veto, 'i don't veto this law'). Any constitutional convention or what have you would also have to be subject to the sovereign's authority.

And what about the commonwealth? Technically, the Governer-Generals 'run' them as a representative of the Monarch and have similiar authority, so how would that work?



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 10:47 AM
link   
The UK is a democracy and yet the head of state isnt elected, hmmm

Everyone on ATS knows my view on are so called "loving Queen"...remove her and the royal family from head of state and introduce a republican system with a President as head of State. Think of all the wasted money that goes to them for land,etc when we could be using that money to invest in school, public safety and health care. Royal family has no importance to this country, plus, is it a democracy when MPs cannot speak of the future of the monarchy on the floor in the house of parliament?? what happened to freedom of speech


Im what you would calll a republican

www.republic.org.uk...



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   
As far as Canada is concerned... or at least this Canadian here... I find the American system of government a lot more satisfying in its checks and balances than mine is (even if I strongly dislike the current American government).

Where America has an executive (the President), a legislative (Congress) and a judicial (Supreme Court) branch, Canada in all reality has only two branches - the legislative and the judicial.

The executive in Canada is the Governor General, representative of the Queen, and her role is largely ceremonial - becoming Governor General is usually a reward for a long public career (the current one, Adrienne Clarkson, is a former journalist, the Diane Sawyer of Canada). Her political role really isn't much - inaugurating every new session of Parliament with the Speech from the Throne (written by the Prime Minister's office) and signing Parliament's bills into law.

So the real power resides in the legislative which is the House of Commons and the Senate. And the Senate is, well... powerless. The senators are named by the Prime Minister's office, again as a reward for a long career.

So the real power resides not only in a sole branch of government, but in one level of that branch - the Commons. Out of the four parties, the one that gets the majority of the 308 seats assumes power, and its leader becomes Prime Minister. The only "check" or "balance" in that system is a minority government (we actually have one right now) where the ruling party still has the most seats in the House, but all the opposition parties banded together have more seats than the government does. In that case, any majority vote AGAINST the government means new elections, so a minority government has to tread very carefully.

I'm not advocating a change in the political system to make it exactly like the United States - after all, our government DOES work, and there's tradition to be counted in - but my country needs to look, for example, at an elected Senate and not a named one, to provide at least ONE counterbalance to the Prime Minister's power.

As for the British monarchy... that's a tricky one. Again, it's tradition, it's strongly rooted in the psyche of the Brits... and from what I see, a constitutional monarchy works. So if it ain't broken, don't fix it.... and if it could use some updating, don't burn the house down - renovate it.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Hi HelenLyle


I found these links very interesting. It's a debunking link(s).

www.channel4.com...
The above is interactive, and
www.cpgb.org.uk...

Sanc'.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   
The following is my opinion, which I firmly believe I'm entitled to, at the risk of beheading:

As a Canadian, I get to watch Her Royal Highness age on our coinage, see commemorative plates and teacups in antique shops regaling past visits and get to 'tsk tsk' the vast amounts of taxpayers money going into the periodic renovations of Rideau Hall.
Being a born Dutchman moving to Canada in the 50's, I also have the capability of deifying the monarchy of Holland.

Wooohooo!

Certainly these families have power...and huge herds of pugs and horses, but what do they contribute to the daily lives of ordinairy hardworking, tax paying stiffs like me? For some strange reason I cannot bring myself to tears over their presence, do not wave my arms in anxious adulation as a flotilla of perfectly maintained car and carraige pass, flanked all around by the dour faces of soldiers in vintage war regalia, brandishing their swords of public subjegation.
How often in history have men, women and children stained those swords with thier blood over some petulant monarch's hateful orders.

Perhaps I am jaded...so worn down by war and genocide in the name of 'king and country' that I have become nauseated when thinking of the monarchies.

I do understand how people loved the Queen Mum...she looked so sweet and everyones dream of a grandmother. And I also understand the devotion given out to the young princes as they grow into maturity, their interests and problems laid bare for the world to share.
But, doesn't it all boil down to the fact that we like to see the royals with human foibles, seeing our own problems reflected and , in some way, bringing them all down to our ordinairy, usually impoverished, levels?

The whole messy thing with Charles and Diana makes one think of the arrogance and deceit played out behind the closed doors of their private lives. No-one needs to dig too far through the history of European monarchies to discover the heartless behaviour so characteristic of the scramble for power. ie Sons murdering fathers, fathers murdering mothers, daughters married off for convenience and profit or killed for religious beliefs.

What is monarchy anyways, if it isn't another form of priesthood, passed down through generations, tainted by weird hoary old interbreeding?

I know I'm shooting off the hip here, but it is my gut feeling that the day of kings and queens have passed.

Last to go will be those bloodlines which suddenly come out of the woodwork, claiming to be related to the Merovingians, direct descendants of Christ and Mary Magdelane, wishing to re-establish the link between God and country and once again demanding "God like' status and the total obedience of all their subjects.

I say let it go...



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Just a question....

I believe that it is the Queen that is the official head of the Anglican Church. How much power does she have in that respect? And, well, with rise of the christian right in this country, I am just wondering. If such a movement were to rise in Britain and succeed, would she gain more political power because of it?



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
Just a question....

I believe that it is the Queen that is the official head of the Anglican Church. How much power does she have in that respect? And, well, with rise of the christian right in this country, I am just wondering. If such a movement were to rise in Britain and succeed, would she gain more political power because of it?


From my experience, the British Monarchy is not considered politicly serious. They have no real influence in politics. The British Monarchy just isn't very important anymore, within Britain anyway.

I wasn't aware that a President was considered the same "level" as a Monarch. Scary.

[edit on 4-10-2004 by Kriz_4]



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
Last to go will be those bloodlines which suddenly come out of the woodwork, claiming to be related to the Merovingians, direct descendants of Christ and Mary Magdelane, wishing to re-establish the link between God and country and once again demanding "God like' status and the total obedience of all their subjects.


That would be the descendants of the royal house of France, represented by three heads - H.R.H the Duke of France (King Henry VII of France, 71 years old), his opponent H.R.H. the Duke of Anjou (King Louis XX of France, 29 years old) and King Juan Carlos of Spain. All of them trace their ancestry back to Hugues Capet, first Capetian king of France (AD 987), and beyond that to the Merovingians and yes, Christ (a topic which would make a VERY interesting thread on its own, Masqua).

At least "Henry VII" has forbidden his family from taking part in any political activity.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Agreed Ott...those strange Merovingians with their crystal balls and beards to their knees...

I don't know how it helps this thread as to it's intent...but a good read about these kings is really telling about royalty. These ancient kings ARE what 'Divine Right' is all about.

I noticed the way Mary was left out of your post...though I'm certain you are aware of the Baigent and Leigh books. I hear there still is a sect in the south of France which holds Magdalene in high regard, believing that she resided there after the 'purported' crucifixion.

One of the great conspiracies...whether factual or not...the search for the Holy Blood(line) and the Holy Grail.

We are steeped in mystery within even deeper mystery...




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join