(feel free to add why/why not)
2006-08-21 23:31:05 · 43 answers · asked by comradelouise 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
to clarify, it's the British monarchy. I believe private property is allowed under a republic too, or am I being stupid?
2006-08-21 23:55:29 · update #1
To all the people saying "heritage" can you explain why they're a GOOD part of our heritage? I believe capital punishment, witch burnings, and child labour are also part of our heritage, but we got rid of those.
2006-08-21 23:57:29 · update #2
yes, feudal practice of having leaders just by birth right has no place in modern society. leaders should be chosen by the will of the people. no amount of justification could correct monarchism
2006-08-21 23:41:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Assuming UK monarchy, then no
Some key aspects of UK culture are bound in with monarchy, such as
Politics - the parliamentary system (where the legislature and executive are combined) requires some means of separating other elements (such as the judiciary). If the head of state were a politician, then some key separations in the UK constitution would no longer bne separate, leading to a dangerous abuse of power. Abolishing the monarch would also mean abolishing parliamentary government in favour of a presidential system (such as France and the US)
Rights - rights in common (such as common land) are vested in a monarchical system. Abolishing the monarchy could put those rights in danger
Ineptitude - the Labour government has made a complete mess of abolishing the lords and in not resolving the rights of Scots MPs to vote on English only legislation. God knows what mess would result if they tried to abolish the monarchy
Centralisation - Central government already has too much power (at the expense of local government and individual citizens). Giving yet more power to one body is IMHO a bad thing. And having the monarch with the 'nuclear option' (to remove the government) is no bad thing
Representation & Symbolism - the monarch is the continuous embodiment of the UK in a way that the office of president never could be. Whilst I can understand fighting for 'queen and country', I'm not sure the same applies when fighting for 'president and country'
Cost - a president would cost the same as a tax paying monarch but without the tourist revenues. Not sure (as a taxpayer) whether I want to pay even more towards the cost of the political system
2006-08-22 00:34:50 · answer #2 · answered by mnaagar 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Being in the United States, the existence of the British monarchy has little impact on me. However, while it does seem to be an anachronism of a previous era, I can see some benefit of keeping it around.
From the U.S. perspective, all of our government officials are political in nature. That means that our president and legislative are based in party politics. It's hard to have a government official of prominence that we can say that we all respect.
I know that not all Britons support the Queen, but when it comes down to it, there's no reason to be anti-supportive when a call of national unity is made. That is, having a Sovereign is at least palatable to most Britons. Many other countries have seen the benefit of having a non-political official in a ceremonial office.
I suppose that the question then becomes is it worth the cost of maintaining the royals for the benefits that come from having them? That I can't really answer, but I believe that should be the basis of deciding whether or not they should be kept around.
2006-08-22 00:21:35 · answer #3 · answered by Ѕємι~Мαđ ŠçїєŋŧιѕТ 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm not British, so don't really have a say in the matter. But if I were British, I'd abolish the monarchy because:
a) Having a person represent you as your head of state just because he was born to the right family is wrong. A head of state should be chosen for the job because of merit, not lineage.
b) I think it's bad for the Royal Children. Growing up in the limelight like that, with your future all set out for you is just too much pressure.
2006-08-22 04:30:55 · answer #4 · answered by PoliSciFi 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
dunno, but your avatar has nice titties!
Perhaps the society has been dumbed down enough. Now that moral and sociological and economic considerations fall far behind admiring your avatar's cleavage.
anyway....
As for your question: Having an elected or an inherited head of state makes no difference. having an elected Prime Minister hasn't helped us avoid any of the disasterous leaders we have had to endure. An elected head of state is no guarentee of good governance. I think our Queen has done a terrific job of maintaining UK interests abroad. Blair has been messing up a lot of her good work. How any future royal will do? I have no idea, but I judge the leader on their personal skill, abilities and capabilities. not on how the got the job, after all, what they do effects me and most people far more than how they got to do what they do.
What would you replace the Monarchy with? I would favour a NON political leader, separate from the government and the legislature that the military has to swear allegience to., and the Military would need their permission and the say so of Parliament to fight any war.
I would hate to imagine a system that would allow Blair to have ultimate power. God know's he's tried his best to get that already.
2006-08-22 00:02:20 · answer #5 · answered by kenhallonthenet 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No i would not sign. The monarchy have been part of our culture for ever and I love them all. Without the royal family we wouldn't have half the tourists. We wouldn't get a Christmas speech and to top it all we would loose the icon of democracy. Russia had a royal family once they got rid and look what happened to the country after that ruled by Communists. Long Live The Queen.
2006-08-23 01:25:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope, I think the monarchy is a part of British Heritage. Imagine having an idiot like President Bush representing your country!!!!
2006-08-21 23:44:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No I would not abolish the British Monarchy for many reasons, but one is that there are no better alternatives to what we have. Most European countries have a Monarchy incidently, as do Commonwealth countries. I just don't fancy yet another election for some past it politician who probably wont have any power any way.
2006-08-25 01:48:41 · answer #8 · answered by missmillyb 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First off
What Monarchy?
Most of the world is already Republic Democratic and Socialist Democratic!
Some are communist but it's not exactly Monarchy, although kind of.
At least with Monarchy, you can own property!
2006-08-21 23:37:06 · answer #9 · answered by JDB 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, for all their faults i think they do a good job.
Yes, we do pay a lot of money to them but imagine having Queenie stood at a bus stop waiting foir the no 46, wouldn't really work.
They also create lots of employment even with their own properties and business, old Charles is doing a cracking job.
Too many hangers on as mentioned above, we should confine any money paid to the central few and sod the rest. They make enough money from using the royal connection as it is.
2006-08-21 23:49:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Most definitely. It's difficult to understand why a civilised, democratic country would try and justify why one family (and their kowtowing supporters) should be treated any differently from ordinary citizens. For those who argue they are part of our heritage so too was poverty,hunger, disease and illiteracy. Their existence is an insult to the intelligence of people unless you happen to believe in an honours system rather than a system of social respect.
2006-08-22 00:07:19 · answer #11 · answered by bob kerr 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋