Is it not time that the British State adopt something similar to the Rights of Man that was drawn up in revolutionary France (over 200 years ago!) and become a republic?
We do not need a monarchy. The money that Diana raised for charity is only a fraction of the money that she received, so undeservedly, from tax that could have gone to the NHS or directly to charities. We do not need them for tourism: it's not like tourists don't go to France, Italy, Germany etc. is it?
The British royal family are an incredibly outdated symbol of a long dead Britain, supported only by sentimental traditionalists and equally outdated celebrities who crave a Knighthood.
2007-09-04 15:32:11 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
Yes, they should be deprived of their inheritance. It belongs to them because a long time ago their kind were considered our "natular superiors".
They should at least pay taxes for their inheritance.
If a state must exist, then it should be sanctioned by the people, and for the people. But no - the Queen opens parliment. When a soldier makes an oath he makes it to the Monarchy, not the people. When a politician makes an oath - it is for the monarchy, not the people. The Monarchy is undemocratic.
2007-09-04 15:56:44 · update #1
I don't believe in any government. But like I said, if we are to have a State (and a head of State), it should be sanctioned by the people (ie democratically elected).
Anyway, the Queen doesn't actually do much. She makes no decisions regarding the way the country is run. She does, however, scrounge of the British tax payer.
To be honest, I don't see how anyone can argue in defence of the monarchy as it is such a non-democratic entity. At least with a republican system people can have at least SOME say in the way things are run (albeit very little . . . but we can change that slowly, first by abolishing the monarchy).
2007-09-05 02:12:55 · update #2
Yes , it's so discredited now it's an embarrassment
2007-09-04 19:12:28 · answer #1 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
As the mentality and needs of the people change, so does their leadership and the "symbols" of leadership. The Queen and royal family represent a romantic notion that brings thoughts of fairy tales, living happily ever after, etc. etc. It fills a mental need among many of the people in your country and other countries. Kings and queens, how grand! Does not most little girls fantasize about one day meeting their prince in shining armor that will take them away....
In the USA, we have Hollywood to fill those needs! Pick up a camera, create a dream world filled with glamour and the promise of the best of the best...voila!
It's just an icon. No different than the pretty pictures on the desktop of your computer. Doesn't make it work better... just makes it look good.
The royal family is gossip central. Get rid of them and who would you have to talk about? Anyway...after the last couple of decades of scandal, they are most definitely a dying breed. I believe your monarchy may very well die with the queen. Personally, I think that will be a sad day. Her children and grandchildren sure left their mark. I always thought it kind of cool, England still had a queen, before the scandals.
2007-09-05 08:08:58 · answer #2 · answered by peggy m 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem is, what would we put in place of the monarchy? Presumably a republic, but of what kind? Would we replace the Queen as figurehead with a president as figurehead, or would we have a US style system in which the president is the main wielder of power? What we have to face is that the UK is deeply conservative. We still have some hereditary peers sitting in the House of Lords. Our constitutional traditions are imbued with numerous ceremonies, with their origins going back hundreds of years. To some extent, it's "better the devil you know", because removing the monarchy would send us into totally uncharted waters, and people might not like what we ended up with instead. My personal view is, let the monarch remain in place, but look at how our system could be made more democratic, with electoral reform, reform of the House of Lords, and removal of the Prime Minister from parliament so that there is genuine separation of powers.
2016-05-17 04:29:04 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yawn. How many times a day or a week is this question asked? Nothing we say here will make an iota of difference to what you think or why.
But the military, the members of Parliament, the Lords, the judges, etc. make an oath to the Queen because she acts on behalf of the state. The power and value of the state are vested in here. She made an oath to the people of Britain and the Commonwealth, so it is only natural that those under her would make an oath to her as a way to express that lovely US notion (which no president accepts) that 'the buck (or pound) stops here.'
As for what other form of government you'd chose, well good luck. The French aren't impressed with their leaders. Remember two-three summers ago when hundreds of elderly people died in the heat wave? The French President was on holiday in Canada and wouldn't return to Paris to oversee rescue efforts.
The American system supposedly has "checks and balances" except that it virtually guarantees grid-lock. Perhaps an Italian style system? Or how about a Swedish one - how do you feel about 50% taxes and lots of people telling you how to live?
A monarchy may not be perfect, but compared to others it works surprisingly well.
2007-09-04 17:17:00 · answer #4 · answered by brian s 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
brian s said it all correctly. Face the alternatives...and there is only one...a Presidency. So, who do you want? Someone like Giorgio Neapolitano who is paid a fortune to open bridges and new hospital wings (er...Queen anyone?), or George Bush? They are your choices. Or, more accurately, in the UK, you would be choosing between 'President Blair or 'President' Branson. Haha! Great choices huh? I am no supporter pf the Royals, but they do at least prevent the horrid situation of a British Presidency ever happening.
2007-09-05 00:19:12 · answer #5 · answered by Superdog 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oh I agree because a republic is sooo much better our politicians and government officials receive hardly any money and in no way are corrupt. What makes you think changing the name of the way things run is going to make things better, the fact is republic or monarchy things are as they are and no matter it won't change your life not one bit...Look at it this way figure out how many people pay money to come and see your royal family, they pay money to visit sites and eat and shop there because you have perhaps one of the most famous tourist attractions in the world today. Ask yourself how much money would your country lose if there was no Queen of England to bring in tourists and their wallets.....
2007-09-05 08:09:32 · answer #6 · answered by Petra 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
So, just because you don't like them, they should be deprived of their inheritance? It is true that the British government could stop paying the royals just for being royals (i.e. through the civil list). However, it is just as true that the royals could stop letting the government collect revenue from the Crown lands, which equals way more than what the family is paid.
2007-09-04 15:47:35 · answer #7 · answered by Nightwind 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes, you should they are inbred and a disgrace, look at that sexually permiscuis late Princess Di ! Just avoid the term President, thats why Australia voted against a Republic 10 years ago (It seemed too American, would win now though).
2007-09-04 17:15:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
if we got rid of our queen we'd need a new national anthem, its more work than u think! what wud we do with all those castles and palaces's. im not a huge fan of the royals but they do have a purpose!
2007-09-04 15:47:12 · answer #9 · answered by galaxygirl 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Good for the tabloids.
2007-09-04 15:42:35 · answer #10 · answered by niddlie diddle 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋