Should the Queen be the last monarch?

[Sultan Of Swing]

Should Queen Elizabeth II be the last monarch, and should the UK become a republic rather than a constitutional monarchy? Many people say it should, because that is more politically "modern" and gives more power to the people. Many people dislike the idea of having someone who has power merely because of their blood and heritage, which is a fair point.

Personally, I like the monarchy. It makes us stand out, and personally I just don't like the idea of becoming a full-on democracy like every other country. I'd like to keep hold of the monarchy, for tradition's sake. I think a lot of policy-making is often made for the benefit of a particular party, and I think that politicians aren't always quite sure of what's best for the country. An individual who has no affiliation with any party or bias will be ideal for overseeing and making sure our country runs smoothly, and doesn't become a playground for political warfare. Well, not that the Queen ever really exercises her power anyway...

 

[Flankerl]

What power? She doesnt hold any power at all.

 

[Nerthus]

I don not see the point of having a Royal family in a country where they have no power anyway. Hundreds of years ago, they were in charge of the country, which I feel is bad idea too, but now they just have everything, and do very little purely because they are born into it.

They might make the UK slightly different to other countries, but is it worth it? People are losing their jobs, yet people have to pay so they can have a big wedding. I don't like it.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

What power? She doesnt hold any power at all.

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.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I don not see the point of having a Royal family in a country where they have no power anyway. Hundreds of years ago, they were in charge of the country, which I feel is bad idea too, but now they just have everything, and do very little purely because they are born into it.

They might make the UK slightly different to other countries, but is it worth it? People are losing their jobs, yet people have to pay so they can have a big wedding. I don't like it.

Meh, the majority of Britain don't seem to mind. And it's nice to have a politically neutral (kind of) figure involved in the country's administration, not affiliated with any certain parties.

 

[lunakilo]

Personally, I like the monarchy. It makes us stand out, and personally I just don't like the idea of becoming a full-on democracy like every other country.

Hmm, Many of your neighboring countries ar monarchies to

File:European states by head of state.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don not see the point of having a Royal family in a country where they have no power anyway. Hundreds of years ago, they were in charge of the country, which I feel is bad idea too, but now they just have everything, and do very little purely because they are born into it.

In most monarchies in Europe the monarch has very little real power, their role is to represent the country.

A monarch can have the advantage of not belonging to a particular political party and can have the ability to represent the general population and not just a political group.

I am not sure how popular monarchy is in the UK in general, but when I see the british royal family on tv, they always look like they fell they are superior to everybody else. Like they are above the general population.

I am not from the UK, so obviously I don't get a say in this, but I cannot understand what people see in the british royal family. But maybe I just don't know them well enough

I have a question.
One evening, during the resent royal wedding I was flickking through the tv-channels. There where a lot of footage from the wedding of course, but then I passed a swedish tv-channel showing a program about the Swedish crown prinsess and the danish crown prince on a trip in the arctic. It was part of a scientific mission about the climate change. The contrast to the royal wedding was big. They looked like real people interacting with other real people. At one point the crown princess Victoria was crawling on the ice on all four and laughing.

I don't know if similar footage exist of the british royal family, but I can't remember ever seeing any.
Are the british royal family ever shown as anything but superior beings?

 

[Willamena]

Many people dislike the idea of having someone who has power merely because of their blood and heritage, which is a fair point.

There's an advantage of our system of government, though. We can never have a George W. Bush who pushes his congress into a war with no discussion. Our Head of State can never have so much power. The power rests with the people.

 

[Rakhel]

For Lunakilo

Prince Harry in the Arctic circle

 

[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.

 

[lunakilo]

For Lunakilo

Prince Harry in the Arctic circle

I feel better now

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

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]

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]

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]

The idea of royalty is a useless relic.

A relic probably, but useless...

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.

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

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]

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.

 

[Yerda]

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?