Monarchy in the UK

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:09 am

Quite.
Listening to people justifying the monarchy is akin to listening to stoners justifying drug use. It's an emotional argument dressed up in unprovable facts and requests to prove negatives.
Recent studies have shown that the tourism effect of the royals is all to do with palaces and paintings, not the presence of the Windsors. But anyway, it's not about money, it's about principle. I can never be a citizen whilst I am also a subject, the one precludes the other. My willingness to accept and abide by the structures of society is dependant upon my permission, not the 'special' nature of the head of state.

Althea · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:42 am

I think, simply put, the argument boils down to "how can we say we live in a democracy when our head of state is an unelected figure?".

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:53 am

There are no supreme saviours
Neither God, nor Caesar, nor tribune.
Producers, let us save ourselves,
Decree the common salvation.
So that the thief expires,
So that the spirit be pulled from its prison,
Let us fan the forge ourselves
Strike the iron while it is hot.

The State oppresses and the law cheats.
Tax bleeds the unfortunate.
No duty is imposed on the rich;
The rights of the poor is an empty phrase.
Enough languishing in custody!
Equality wants other laws:
No rights without duties, she says,
Equally, no duties without rights.

Workers, peasants, we are
The great party of labourers.
The earth belongs only to men;
The idle will go to reside elsewhere.
How much of our flesh have they consumed?
But if these ravens, these vultures
Disappeared one of these days,
The sun will shine forever.

This is the final struggle
Let us group together, and tomorrow
The Internationale
Will be the human race.

Althea · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:54 am

Down with serfdom, up with communism!

bluebellnutter · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:13 pm

lord_kobel wrote:

If you're saying they don't do much, why are we paying so much to keep them around?

Because no-one can argue against the figures posted earlier that revenue is bought into the country as a result of having them. Like it or not tourists love the royals and the various trappings of it (a cursory glance at the crowds for the changing of the guard shows. If the royal family were simply a black hole from which we gained absolutely no advantage then I'd entirely see where you're coming from, but as this isn't the case then I'm afraid I don't. I refer back to the Stonehenge comparison, we have to pay a lot of money to maintain the stones and the lands around them, but they don't pay anything back directly. However they do encourage tourism which is a major, major part of the British economy.

Althea wrote:

I think, simply put, the argument boils down to "how can we say we live in a democracy when our head of state is an unelected figure?".

Because the majority of the population wants that to be the case, which is democracy in action.

bluebellnutter · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:15 pm

Malcolm Armsteen wrote:

There are no supreme saviours
Neither God, nor Caesar, nor tribune.
Producers, let us save ourselves,
Decree the common salvation.
So that the thief expires,
So that the spirit be pulled from its prison,
Let us fan the forge ourselves
Strike the iron while it is hot.

The State oppresses and the law cheats.
Tax bleeds the unfortunate.
No duty is imposed on the rich;
The rights of the poor is an empty phrase.
Enough languishing in custody!
Equality wants other laws:
No rights without duties, she says,
Equally, no duties without rights.

Workers, peasants, we are
The great party of labourers.
The earth belongs only to men;
The idle will go to reside elsewhere.
How much of our flesh have they consumed?
But if these ravens, these vultures
Disappeared one of these days,
The sun will shine forever.

This is the final struggle
Let us group together, and tomorrow
The Internationale
Will be the human race.

All very nice and all but only really relevant to Feudalistic autocratic monarchies which no-one in their right mind would say that the UK in 2012 is. And indeed hasn't been since the 1650s. And you only have to look at how brilliant everything was under Cromwell to see how well we'd do without a Monarch.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:18 pm

Ah! Whataboutery...

The principle is the same, whatever the practice.

Althea · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:31 pm

bluebellnutter wrote:

Because the majority of the population wants that to be the case, which is democracy in action.

They've never had the alternative, nor has it gone to a vote or a 'proper' public consultation. I'm sure, like the religion surveys, people feel as if they "have" to support the monarchy/the church because it's expected of them thanks to tradition and the status quo.

bluebellnutter · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:41 pm

Althea wrote:

bluebellnutter wrote:

Because the majority of the population wants that to be the case, which is democracy in action.

They've never had the alternative, nor has it gone to a vote or a 'proper' public consultation. I'm sure, like the religion surveys, people feel as if they "have" to support the monarchy/the church because it's expected of them thanks to tradition and the status quo.

Then lets hold a referendum on it. Even "Republic" only claim 25% support, and as I mentioned earlier I very much suspect this figure in itself is inflated. The best way to gauge public opinion is to ask them straight up. Most Republicans tend to shy away at this point knowing they'd lose, though.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote:

Ah! Whataboutery...

The principle is the same, whatever the practice.

I'm not the one using "whataboutery" as you put it, I refer you to Altheas post above for an example of that. Cromwell actually happened, and his rule was such a success we became the only country in history to reverse the outcome of a civil war (albeit a watered down version).

Althea · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:42 pm

bluebellnutter wrote:

Then lets hold a referendum on it. Even "Republic" only claim 25% support, and as I mentioned earlier I very much suspect this figure in itself is inflated. The best way to gauge public opinion is to ask them straight up. Most Republicans tend to shy away at this point knowing they'd lose, though.

Again, that's not going to do much because I reckon "most people" feel as if they *have* to support the monarchy.

bluebellnutter · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:45 pm

Althea wrote:

bluebellnutter wrote:

Then lets hold a referendum on it. Even "Republic" only claim 25% support, and as I mentioned earlier I very much suspect this figure in itself is inflated. The best way to gauge public opinion is to ask them straight up. Most Republicans tend to shy away at this point knowing they'd lose, though.

Again, that's not going to do much because I reckon "most people" feel as if they *have* to support the monarchy.

That's purely your opinion and not one which you seemingly have anything to back it up. Religion is a much more grey area as claiming to be an atheist carries all sorts of connotations and comparisons with the likes of Dawkins, it's certainly a much greyer area than a simple "Do you want to have a Monarchy, yes or no?" question. Straight choices are always much more representative than multiple choice answers.

bluebellnutter · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:48 pm

Malcolm Armsteen wrote:

Quite.
Listening to people justifying the monarchy is akin to listening to stoners justifying drug use. It's an emotional argument dressed up in unprovable facts and requests to prove negatives.
Recent studies have shown that the tourism effect of the royals is all to do with palaces and paintings, not the presence of the Windsors. But anyway, it's not about money, it's about principle. I can never be a citizen whilst I am also a subject, the one precludes the other. My willingness to accept and abide by the structures of society is dependant upon my permission, not the 'special' nature of the head of state.

As proven by your post, however, Republican arguments are very muck akin to people who try and argue we should not be in the EU but the reality is that despite all the high-minded arguments about democracy and all their main areas of ire are that something they don't like exists and they resent that they can't do anything about it, and more so have to pay for the privilege. Usually backed up by wildly inaccurate "facts" or their own particular ideology which they can't see past.

Althea · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:50 pm

bluebellnutter wrote:

That's purely your opinion and not one which you seemingly have anything to back it up. Religion is a much more grey area as claiming to be an atheist carries all sorts of connotations and comparisons with the likes of Dawkins, it's certainly a much greyer area than a simple "Do you want to have a Monarchy, yes or no?" question. Straight choices are always much more representative than multiple choice answers.

To be fair, you're not providing anything to counter me either.

The Red Arrow · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 1:10 pm

I think you're misunderestimating Cromwell's legacy, Bluebell.

bluebellnutter · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 1:12 pm

Althea wrote:

bluebellnutter wrote:

That's purely your opinion and not one which you seemingly have anything to back it up. Religion is a much more grey area as claiming to be an atheist carries all sorts of connotations and comparisons with the likes of Dawkins, it's certainly a much greyer area than a simple "Do you want to have a Monarchy, yes or no?" question. Straight choices are always much more representative than multiple choice answers.

To be fair, you're not providing anything to counter me either.

You were the one who made the assumption, not I. Even Republic don't subscribe to your particular line of reasoning, which I would have thought they would have done had it had even a shred of credibility.

Monarchy in the UK

Who is online