Should the Queen be the last monarch?

[Sultan Of Swing]

Originally Posted by kai

well her shoes are going to take some filling thats for sure, i never thought i would see the day she would be welcome in Ireland.

Irish eyes are smiling: show of respect turns Queen into runaway favourite | UK news | The Guardian


and their isn't a soul on these islands that could have done it better.

Hmm... I don't know how Prince Charles is going to be able to live up to the expectations. He's steeped up in enough controversy already, can't wait to see what he does once he's King..

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Sultan Of Swing

Hmm... I don't know how Prince Charles is going to be able to live up to the expectations. He's steeped up in enough controversy already, can't wait to see what he does once he's King..

It's entirely possible that he'll simply forfeit the throne to William.

[Sultan Of Swing]

Originally Posted by Willamena

It's entirely possible that he'll simply forfeit the throne to William.

Naahhh, I think he wants the throne.

[Father Heathen]

The idea of royalty is a useless relic. The suggestion that someone is elite or entitled simply because they come from a particular bloodline is an insult to the common man. They're simply parasites that take their wealth from the populace while contributing nothing in return. Such prestige should be earned.

[lunakilo]

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

The idea of royalty is a useless relic.

A relic probably, but useless...

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

The suggestion that someone is elite or entitled simply because they come from a particular bloodline is an insult to the common man.

In principle, you are right.
But in real life there things are often quite different.

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

They're simply parasites that take their wealth from the populace while contributing nothing in return.

I don't agree there.
I am sure there are worthless monarchs around that would fit your description, but it does not go for all.
If they do contribute, they are not parasites are they

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

Such prestige should be earned.

You couls argue that if a monarch serves its country well, it earned.

If you look at the monarchies in europe ( Monarchy_in_Europe ) you will notice that many of them have large support from the people.
A quick look through the list in the link tells me that many of the monarchs have 70 - 80 % of the population backing them (how many presidents can beat that?).

In most modern monarchies the power of the monarch is very limited, their primary role is to represent the country.
Representing a country costs money no matter who does it. If it is a monarch or a president doesn't change the cost.

[Flankerl]

Originally Posted by Sultan Of Swing

She can appoint a Prime Minister when there is no overall majority (yeah I know, big deal).

But otherwise, all laws that pass through Parliament must be approved by her first. Well, a law has never been rejected since the 18th century, and if one was in modern times then the Queen would probably be stripped of most of her power. But still. She has the power to reject new laws.

So what you are saying is that she doesnt have any power. She is merely a tool.



Also this would ruin the british tourism. Why would anyone visit this rainy island if not for the royal house?

[kai]

Take a look at this i found it interesting :


The queen with US presidents:

Queen Elizabeth with 12 U.S.*Presidents « Lisa's History Room

[Terrywoodenpic]

The US presidents get a pension and security supplied for life. In theory, if they all lived as long as the Queen the cost of them all would be astronomic. as rarely more than five of them are alive at once, the cost is merely stratospheric. The Queen now subsidises her costs from her own income.

[Jaiket]

I cannot think of a single compelling argument for the monarchy.

[Yukon]

The queen has NO power my son. She is the titular head of state - Parliament is all powerful. What or who would you replace her with? The Pope, or a President?