advertisement


Prince Charles

Sorry but all of that is highly questionable. First of all the monarchy costs much more that the Sovereign grant, secondly the benefits are spurious. Tourism for example, Tourist don’t come to the UK because of the monarchy, France’s tourist industry is worth a lot more than ours, and they don’t have a monarchy...

Ah, but they've got the Eiffel tower, the Mona Lisa and the Venus de Milo. And some other stuff.

Otherwise they wouldn't really have any tourists at all.
 
Ah, but they've got the Eiffel tower, the Mona Lisa and the Venus de Milo. And some other stuff.

Otherwise they wouldn't really have any tourists at all.
A large proportion of your 'some other stuff' is the cultural residue of royalty (Sainte-Chapelle, The Louvre, Versaille).

That's the point. You only need the assets, not the live institution of monarchy, to generate the tourism.
 
I find the whole idea of hereditary "rank" utterly repulsive. That I should bow my head to some fool just because he or she is Queen Victoria's great-great-great grandson/daughter is horrible, racist, and directly reinforces the concept that some men are born more equal than others.
As Laughingboy says, you can keep the "stuff" without the people. Including things like the Horseguards, changing the guard, etc., if they do it for an elected president. See France and Italy with their palaces and "Corazzieri" and "Cuirassieurs" dragoons.
Depending on the constitutional structure, a "President of the Republic" can be a figurehead, as in Italy and Israel, rather than an active politician as in France.
 
I find the whole idea of hereditary "rank" utterly repulsive. That I should bow my head to some fool just because he or she is Queen Victoria's great-great-great grandson/daughter is horrible, racist, and directly reinforces the concept that some men are born more equal than others.

Agreed. When the Queen goes it'd be a good time to scrap the monarchy.
 
Are there any recent opinion polls? I imagine for such a radical constitutional change a referendum would be required. Or, perhaps, a certain parliamentary majority could do it?
 
I find the whole idea of hereditary "rank" utterly repulsive. That I should bow my head to some fool just because he or she is Queen Victoria's great-great-great grandson/daughter is horrible, racist, and directly reinforces the concept that some men are born more equal than others.
Must take a hell of a lot of work to convince even THEM that this is OK.
 
Are there any recent opinion polls? I imagine for such a radical constitutional change a referendum would be required. Or, perhaps, a certain parliamentary majority could do it?
51499811995_80d24a3ebe_c.jpg
 
Are there any recent opinion polls? I imagine for such a radical constitutional change a referendum would be required. Or, perhaps, a certain parliamentary majority could do it?

I would think a referendum rather than a vote in Parliament, though either would open a huge can of constitutional worms.

But I don't sense any great desire amongst the Great British Public to abolish the monarchy. There's a few who are strongly for or against the Royal Family, but I would guess that the majority aren't bothered one way or another, and, since Britain is broadly speaking a conservative country, I'd expect the status quo to be the favoured option. AIUI, even those campaigning for Scottish independence want to retain the Queen as Head of State.
 
I would think a referendum rather than a vote in Parliament, though either would open a huge can of constitutional worms.

But I don't sense any great desire amongst the Great British Public to abolish the monarchy. There's a few who are strongly for or against the Royal Family, but I would guess that the majority aren't bothered one way or another, and, since Britain is broadly speaking a conservative country, I'd expect the status quo to be the favoured option. AIUI, even those campaigning for Scottish independence want to retain the Queen as Head of State.
To be expected for a populace routinely voting on issues they never bother to fully research or even understand. Then again where does that happen anyway except places in uprising where you must be aware or perish?

There is so much propaganda surrounding the alleged 'value' of a monarchy that only off-the-peg talking points are offered in articles/discussions. The Daily Mail has actually published articles which surprisingly question the value of monarchy, but finally falls back on the view that it is better the devil you know. The standard approach that it's better to have something above 'mere' elected officials as some sort of counterweight prevails. Even though a majority of the same people would probably reject the view that her Maj is divinely appointed by a deity. Or deny that she or her offspring are incapable of wrongdoing. It's completely inconsistent. The concept of a 'constitutional monarchy' is an absurd halfway house of nonsense where actual power lies with government and a charade of 'special powers' invested in a monarch, all of which could actually be overridden by parliament.
 
So unless I'm misreading the tables, the vast majority of Brits wants to keep the monarchy. Not much more to be said then. Or is there?
When the choices offered by the survey are that stupid of course there is.
 
So unless I'm misreading the tables, the vast majority of Brits wants to keep the monarchy. Not much more to be said then. Or is there?
Yes, we’re stuck with a monarchy. Still plenty to be said about the sorry state of affairs though!
 
There's a lot to be said and done, but it's hard work. People could be less accommodating of dunce opinions on the principle that everyone is 'entitled to their say and view'. You ought to be able to robustly justify and defend a view held or it's not worth spit. There's no part of democracy that says views can't be questioned or reasons for a view have to be taken on sacred democratic faith.
So it's correct to ask people e.g. 'why should we invade Iraq?' and when the answer is: 'because Saddam has WMDs and is going to use them...probably'. It's the job of the person asking to counter the claim and provide evidence to show the view is utterly unfounded. Then to ask again: 'why should we invade Iraq?' And persist in doing so until the person walks off with their fingers in their ears because they are incorrigible, intellectually lazy fools, or starts providing justification for a view that in aggregate has important consequences for public policy.
 


advertisement


Back
Top