• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should the Queen be the last monarch?

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Should Queen Elizabeth II be the last monarch, and should the UK become a republic rather than a constitutional monarchy?
I'll let the Brits decide what happens there, but I do think that Elizabeth II should be the last monarch of Canada.

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.
But it's not even really based on that. If blood is what mattered, then the Brits would uphold Duke Franz of Bavaria (the current successor to the Jacobite line) as their king. The royal system as it exists today isn't really based on blood OR merit.

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.
"Us" as in Britons? Or are you talking from a different point of view?

Personally, I want to live in a full democracy. And I think that the tradition of barring Catholics from the office of head of state is a tradition worth abandoning.

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.
Do you think that British monarchs have a better track record?

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...
Wait... so the monarchy is good because monarchs can do something that the monarch never does? :confused:

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.
I'm not so sure of that. I'd say that currently, the PMO exercises more power over the Canadian parliament than the American President exercises over Congress.

Also this would ruin the british tourism. Why would anyone visit this rainy island if not for the royal house? ;)
Abolishing the monarchy doesn't mean you'd have to demolish Buckingham Palace. The French get plenty of tourists at Versailles and they haven't had a monarchy in more than 200 years.

Also, speaking as a Canadian, supporting British tourism doesn't really make a compelling argument to me for keeping the Queen and her successors as the head of state of Canada.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
Also this would ruin the british tourism. Why would anyone visit this rainy island if not for the royal house? ;)
"Actually, of the top 20 tourist attractions in Britain, only one of them, number 17, is related to the royal family: Windsor Castle. Ten points ahead of it is Windsor Legoland. So using that logic, we should have a Lego man as our head of state instead of these people." - Johann Hari on Democracy Now!

I'm all for having a Royal Lego Family. :cool:
 

kai

ragamuffin
"Actually, of the top 20 tourist attractions in Britain, only one of them, number 17, is related to the royal family: Windsor Castle. Ten points ahead of it is Windsor Legoland. So using that logic, we should have a Lego man as our head of state instead of these people." - Johann Hari on Democracy Now!

I'm all for having a Royal Lego Family. :cool:

which list is that?


heres one:

The top 10 destinations for inbound tourists were revealed to be:

1. Trafalgar Square
2. Tower Bridge
3. London museums
4. Buckingham Palace
5. Oxford Street
6. The London Eye
7. Windsor Castle
8. Edinburgh Castle
9. Stonehenge
10. Globe Theatre, London

UK



Monarchy attracts £500 million a year from overseas tourists
Overseas tourists spend half a billion pounds a year visiting all things royal when they come to Britain, the first survey of its kind shows.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...00-million-a-year-from-overseas-tourists.html
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Monarchy attracts £500 million a year from overseas tourists
Overseas tourists spend half a billion pounds a year visiting all things royal when they come to Britain, the first survey of its kind shows.
Castles are not monarchy. The touristic and historical appeal of a castle does not depend on having an actual king or queen as your head of state today.

As I touched on earlier, the Palace of Versailles attracts nearly 3 million tourists per year, even though France has been a republic for more than two centuries.

The tourism argument is a red herring. The "tourism benefits" of a monarchy are actually benefits from having a past history of monarchy, which would continue to be the case even if the monarchy is made into a modern republic.
 

kai

ragamuffin
Castles are not monarchy. The touristic and historical appeal of a castle does not depend on having an actual king or queen as your head of state today.

As I touched on earlier, the Palace of Versailles attracts nearly 3 million tourists per year, even though France has been a republic for more than two centuries.

The tourism argument is a red herring. The "tourism benefits" of a monarchy are actually benefits from having a past history of monarchy, which would continue to be the case even if the monarchy is made into a modern republic.


Windsor castle is a real castle and has the a queen to go with it, its appeal is in its entirety, its is the oldest and largest occupied castle in the world. we have lots of castles Windsor is home to a real queen. thats a unique selling point.

Versailles is Versailles ,different architecturally , age, history and culture. comparing it is a little odd.Unless you are comparing it to Buckingham palace? Versailles wins hands down , the only thing Buckingham palace has going for it, is its the Royal residence.

tourism benefits of the monarchy is we have a living monarchy in its historical settings, it makes it more than just bricks and mortar for tourists.


i am not saying we need a queen for tourism , i dont care why they come , but if you have any sources that say the living monarchy in situ is irrelevant to "Royal" tourist sites then lets have them, because its certainly relevant to me and my kids when i have took them to London.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Windsor castle is a real castle and has the a queen to go with it, its appeal is in its entirety, its is the oldest and largest occupied castle in the world. we have lots of castles Windsor is home to a real queen. thats a unique selling point.
How is that a selling point? It just means that the "working" parts of the castle are off-limits to the tour, so the tourists actually get to see less.

I think if you wanted to see the real effect of the Queen on tourism, what you could do is compare the magnitude of tourism (whether in numbers or economic impact) at whatever castle you're talking about on days when the Queen is there vs. when she's off somewhere else. The tourists who still show up at Windsor Castle when the Queen's off at Balmoral or the like are there to see the castle itself, not the Queen.

Versailles is Versailles ,different architecturally , age, history and culture. comparing it is a little odd.Unless you are comparing it to Buckingham palace? Versailles wins hands down , the only thing Buckingham palace has going for it, is its the Royal residence.
Versailles was just the first other European castle that came to mind, but we're welcome to look at any prominent castle in any former monarchy.

Tell you what: you mentioned Edinburgh Castle; it hasn't been a royal residence since 1606. How does it compare as a tourist draw to Balmoral Castle, which would benefit from this effect you describe of the current monarch... presuming it's a real effect?

tourism benefits of the monarchy is we have a living monarchy in its historical settings, it makes it more than just bricks and mortar for tourists.
Historical re-enactors and interpreters do that, too. If I go to Fort York in downtown Toronto, there will be real-live people in period costumes to explain things to the visitors and make the fort "come alive". However, none of the people in War of 1812-era soldier's uniforms are actually soldiers.

i am not saying we need a queen for tourism , i dont care why they come , but if you have any sources that say the living monarchy in situ is irrelevant to "Royal" tourist sites then lets have them, because its certainly relevant to me and my kids when i have took them to London.
Have you ever taken your kids to Edinburgh Castle?

Were they disappointed when you told them that the Queen never lives there?
 

kai

ragamuffin
How is that a selling point? It just means that the "working" parts of the castle are off-limits to the tour, so the tourists actually get to see less. Oh i see its not for you, it is for me , different strokes for different folks.

I think if you wanted to see the real effect of the Queen on tourism, what you could do is compare the magnitude of tourism (whether in numbers or economic impact) at whatever castle you're talking about on days when the Queen is there vs. when she's off somewhere else. The tourists who still show up at Windsor Castle when the Queen's off at Balmoral or the like are there to see the castle itself, not the Queen. Whether she is there or not doesnt really matter its the fact its a royal residence that gives it extra stature ( to some not all)


Versailles was just the first other European castle that came to mind, but we're welcome to look at any prominent castle in any former monarchy.

Tell you what: you mentioned Edinburgh Castle; it hasn't been a royal residence since 1606. How does it compare as a tourist draw to Balmoral Castle, which would benefit from this effect you describe of the current monarch... presuming it's a real effect? I dont know, you tell me


Historical re-enactors and interpreters do that, too. If I go to Fort York in downtown Toronto, there will be real-live people in period costumes to explain things to the visitors and make the fort "come alive". However, none of the people in War of 1812-era soldier's uniforms are actually soldiers. Yes but Britain has always prided itself on its pageantry so give me real red coats changing the guards for a real queen anytime, its not a re-enactment its real time.


Have you ever taken your kids to Edinburgh Castle? No

Were they disappointed when you told them that the Queen never lives there?

No i haven't been there.


i cant find a lot of information but the fact is the the fact we have a queen is a factor to tourists and tourist attractions how much i dont know. I know this from my own perspective and friends and family etc. what the UK offers tourists is not a re-enactment but real time pageantry in my opinion the best in the world.


Castles and palaces are what overseas travellers want to see most when they come to Britain, according to a new VisitBritain report.

More than 10,000 foreign tourists were given a list of 18 things that can only be done in Britain – and asked to pick the ones they’d like to do most.

The top three choices were, in order of importance: to go on a tour of Welsh castles, visit Buckingham Palace and stay the night in a Scottish castle.

These results come from a new report entitled ‘’the appeal of only-in-Britain activities’’ which was based on exclusive research commissioned by VisitBritain from the 2010 Nation Brands Index.

Researchers interviewed approximately 10,000 adults in 20 nations around the world (1). The insights provide new evidence that history and culture – particularly when it is linked to Monarchy – are crucial components of this country’s unique appeal as a holiday destination.


http://gouk.com/what-tourists-want-to-do-most-in-the-uk/352/



Maybe you would be one of those tourists who would shun anything royal, thats up to you isnt it , lots of people dont though, me included.

I reckon its a little like going to see the white house because the president lives there. Its a nice house, but its unique selling point is the president lives there. you see that's why i went to see Buckingham Palace as a tourist because the Queen lives there.


 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
i cant find a lot of information but the fact is the the fact we have a queen is a factor to tourists and tourist attractions how much i dont know.
If you don't know how large the effect is, then how can you say it's a compelling reason to keep the monarchy?

Castles and palaces are what overseas travellers want to see most when they come to Britain, according to a new VisitBritain report.

More than 10,000 foreign tourists were given a list of 18 things that can only be done in Britain – and asked to pick the ones they’d like to do most.

The top three choices were, in order of importance: to go on a tour of Welsh castles, visit Buckingham Palace and stay the night in a Scottish castle.

These results come from a new report entitled ‘’the appeal of only-in-Britain activities’’ which was based on exclusive research commissioned by VisitBritain from the 2010 Nation Brands Index.

Researchers interviewed approximately 10,000 adults in 20 nations around the world (1). The insights provide new evidence that history and culture – particularly when it is linked to Monarchy – are crucial components of this country’s unique appeal as a holiday destination.


What tourists want to do most in the UK
Hmm. For me, my top three destinations in the UK as a tourist would be:

- Silverstone for the British GP
- Wales for Rally GB
- The Isle of Islay for... ahem... its main export. ;)

:D

Maybe you would be one of those tourists who would shun anything royal, thats up to you isnt it , lots of people dont though, me included.
No... I might be inclined to go see Buckingham Palace, especially if my wife was with me. :D

However, the appeal (or lack thereof) of Buckingham Palace for me doesn't depend on the Queen actually living there.

I reckon its a little like going to see the white house because the president lives there. Its a nice house, but its unique selling point is the president lives there. you see that's why i went to see Buckingham Palace as a tourist because the Queen lives there.
I disagree. I think the more important aspect of their appeal is their history, which is something that wouldn't change if the monarchy was done away with.

But out of curiosity, what relevance is all this stuff about British tourism supposed to have for me, a Canadian? Why should the tourist benefit (such as it is) to your country have a bearing on whether I should support her as my head of state?
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
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?

It's useless so it doesn't need to be replaced, only discarded and forgotten.
 

kai

ragamuffin
If you don't know how large the effect is, then how can you say it's a compelling reason to keep the monarchy? I dont think i have ? To me its all part and parcel of UK LTD.


Hmm. For me, my top three destinations in the UK as a tourist would be:

- Silverstone for the British GP
- Wales for Rally GB
- The Isle of Islay for... ahem... its main export. ;)

:D


There you go i wouldnt really be interested in any of those.

No... I might be inclined to go see Buckingham Palace, especially if my wife was with me. :D

However, the appeal (or lack thereof) of Buckingham Palace for me doesn't depend on the Queen actually living there. To me Buck House doesnt have much appeal without it being a royal residence.


I disagree. I think the more important aspect of their appeal is their history, which is something that wouldn't change if the monarchy was done away with. Well its natural to dissagree or we would all be interested in the same things, To me its the use its put to today as well as its history.

But out of curiosity, what relevance is all this stuff about British tourism supposed to have for me, a Canadian? Why should the tourist benefit (such as it is) to your country have a bearing on whether I should support her as my head of state?

It doesnt. I don't really care if she's your head of state or not, I am speaking from my own point of view.:)
 

Vile Atheist

Loud and Obnoxious
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?

What are you talking about?

The Queen has ULTIMATE power. When the Queen is not in Canada, her representative - the Governor-General - holds all the cards.

Parliament cannot be dissolved without the Queen or GG's say-so. Bills cannot be made into law without the Queen or GG's say-so. Essentially, our government cannot function if the Queen or GG doesn't say so.

The most democratic systems in the world are parliamentary monarchies. There is utility in a monarch. The British Commonwealth is united by a common recognizance of the Queen as each member's Head of State. The Commonwealth fosters brotherly ties and good relations with the 50-some odd countries (if I'm not mistaken) in the Commonwealth.

The monarchy acts as the police of our government, disallowing gigantic abuses of power. It doesn't have a party affiliation and is completely neutral. There is a damn lot of utility in the monarchy.

While I agree that the display of wealth and opulence inherited only through blood is crass and antiquated, the monarchy is a very important figurehead as well.

Personally, I think we can have the best of both worlds by simply electing a common Head of State for all Commonwealth countries. Someone neutral, not affiliated with any party, moderate, has good principles, education, and someone who can be trusted with the policing of our government.

Essentially give the same powers to someone who is elected on their merits, but take away the wealth and opulence of the monarchy.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
People seem to have an affinity for anachronisms I don't understand. Additionally, they seem to have a preference to have a clearly defined hierarchy which lets them know who their "betters" are. The same preference which has allowed classicist systems to dominate for most of history.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
What are you talking about?

The Queen has ULTIMATE power. When the Queen is not in Canada, her representative - the Governor-General - holds all the cards.

Parliament cannot be dissolved without the Queen or GG's say-so. Bills cannot be made into law without the Queen or GG's say-so. Essentially, our government cannot function if the Queen or GG doesn't say so.
On paper, maybe. Practically, this just winds up being a rubber stamp the vast majority of the time.

The most democratic systems in the world are parliamentary monarchies. There is utility in a monarch. The British Commonwealth is united by a common recognizance of the Queen as each member's Head of State. The Commonwealth fosters brotherly ties and good relations with the 50-some odd countries (if I'm not mistaken) in the Commonwealth.
Actually, not all Commonwealth countries recognize the Queen as their head of state. You're conflating two issues.

The monarchy acts as the police of our government, disallowing gigantic abuses of power. It doesn't have a party affiliation and is completely neutral. There is a damn lot of utility in the monarchy.
Again, I'd disagree. For instance, take the recent abuse of prorogation power by Harper: The G-G had the power to say "no" and send him back to work, but she didn't. Twice.

Also, your description of the function of the monarchy sounds a lot like the description of the role of the Senate. Does that mean that one of these bodies is redundant?
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I don't have a dog in this hunt as an American.

But - hey, I like the British monarchy. They provide great entertainment that doesn't cost me a penny - unless of course they visit the US, which thankfully isn't often.

Personally, I think any sort of monarchy is sort of ridiculous, but if the majority of the people in a country don't mind having them hang around, act pretentious, and suck up tax dollars, it's fine by me. To each his own.
 

Vile Atheist

Loud and Obnoxious
On paper, maybe. Practically, this just winds up being a rubber stamp the vast majority of the time.

Perhaps so, but that theoretical power is definitely not abused by the monarchy. I'm half-glad the monarchy doesn't step in to stop everything it doesn't like, but I'm also half-disappointed because they have the power to be useful police and sometimes don't act when they probably should. That's why I suggest a common Head of State for the Commonwealth (plus representatives in each country) with similar powers to a monarch, elected, and with set term limits all to act as police to stop government abuses of power. Of course, the idea requires refinement, but overall I think it's workable.

Actually, not all Commonwealth countries recognize the Queen as their head of state. You're conflating two issues

You are correct. The Queen is the Head of State of 16 of 54 Commonwealth nations. The Queen is the ceremonial Head of the Commonwealth, but not the Head of State of each individual Commonwealth member. I stand corrected. It used to be that to be a member of the Commonwealth, you needed to recognize the British monarchy as a Head of State, but that stopped in 1948 when Ireland became a republic. Other Commonwealth nations that previously recognized the British monarchy as their Head of State became republics while still remaining within the Commonwealth and the criteria for membership was changed to allow states that didn't recognize the British monarchy to join the Commonwealth.

Again, I'd disagree. For instance, take the recent abuse of prorogation power by Harper: The G-G had the power to say "no" and send him back to work, but she didn't. Twice.

Also, your description of the function of the monarchy sounds a lot like the description of the role of the Senate. Does that mean that one of these bodies is redundant?

Well, the Senate has been stuffed with Conservative appointed senators by Harper, so essentially it's an extension of the PMO, doing whatever it wants, so yeah it's redundant. Especially when Harper has a majority in the House. I think one person or even a small council of people with monarch-like powers with the purpose of policing the government with well-established guidelines to prevent abuses of power by the government would be a great idea.

My take on why Michaelle Jean didn't act on Harper's prorogations is probably that if she (and by extension the monarchy) were seen as interfering with government affairs to an unwanted extent, it would encourage more Canadians to get rid of the monarchy (and there's strong support for both sides). I think the GGs have taken "acting on the advise of the Prime Minister" to mean "doing whatever the Prime Minister says". In most cases, I agree that they should "do whatever the Prime Minister says", but in clear abuses of process and power, it is their role to stop it.

I don't think the monarchy should be abolished, per se, but replaced with an elected official(s) to effectively police the government and step in where it's warranted. Something that will get rid of the antiquated feel of the monarchy, but will still act more effectively in the role the monarchy has at the present.
 

Vile Atheist

Loud and Obnoxious
I don't have a dog in this hunt as an American.

But - hey, I like the British monarchy. They provide great entertainment that doesn't cost me a penny - unless of course they visit the US, which thankfully isn't often.

Personally, I think any sort of monarchy is sort of ridiculous, but if the majority of the people in a country don't mind having them hang around, act pretentious, and suck up tax dollars, it's fine by me. To each his own.

That's more a problem for the British than for us. In Canada, the Queen is represented by the Governor-General whose purpose is to sign bills into law and dissolve and reconvene Parliament, etc. whenever the Queen isn't in town (which isn't often).

The problems are that there actually is some utility in a monarch, but the monarch is largely reluctant to use her powers to stop government abuses of power (which you might not necessarily expect in Canada, but right now our Conservative government has abused a lot of power and process). That's why I'm of the opinion a monarch should be replaced with an elected official with set term limits who has similar powers of a monarch and could effectively police the government and step in where warranted.

Many Canadians have British heritage, either recent or generations ago, and the monarchy acts as a bridge between Canada and the UK. There is historical and cultural appeal of a monarch as well. Canadians don't generally feel the same sort of animosity towards the monarch as I've encounted in many Americans. We've never really been given a reason to complain about the monarchy. It's just that they're anachronistic in this day and age.

For Americans, there are historical reasons to dislike monarchies. After all, it's the raison d'etre of the United States. But the Americans I've spoke to on this issue generally think that Canada is directly governed by the monarch and there is no democracy, which is entirely false. Or that since the monarchy holds ultimate power, it will necessarily use that power for evil, which is also entirely false.

Either way, I get both sides of the argument. I would rather the Queen be replaced with something more modern and relevant.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
That's more a problem for the British than for us. In Canada, the Queen is represented by the Governor-General whose purpose is to sign bills into law and dissolve and reconvene Parliament, etc. whenever the Queen isn't in town (which isn't often).

The problems are that there actually is some utility in a monarch, but the monarch is largely reluctant to use her powers to stop government abuses of power (which you might not necessarily expect in Canada, but right now our Conservative government has abused a lot of power and process). That's why I'm of the opinion a monarch should be replaced with an elected official with set term limits who has similar powers of a monarch and could effectively police the government and step in where warranted.
That's close to what I think of as an ideal solution: making the Governor General an office appointed by Parliament for a fixed term, similar to, say, the Auditor General.

Many Canadians have British heritage, either recent or generations ago, and the monarchy acts as a bridge between Canada and the UK.
Heh... I have almost entirely British heritage, but much of it is either Quaker (who rejected monarchy in general) or Jacobite (who supported monarchy, but not this monarchy). :D
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
But the Americans I've spoke to on this issue generally think that Canada is directly governed by the monarch and there is no democracy, which is entirely false. Or that since the monarchy holds ultimate power, it will necessarily use that power for evil, which is also entirely false.

Wow, that's weird. I've never met anyone over the age of 18 who thinks that any European monarch has those sorts of powers at hand.

If polled, I would bet that most Americans don't even know that a monarchy exists in Canadian government!

Most Americans don't hold any animosity toward monarchies. We're just bemused by them.
 

Vile Atheist

Loud and Obnoxious
Wow, that's weird. I've never met anyone over the age of 18 who thinks that any European monarch has those sorts of powers at hand.

If polled, I would bet that most Americans don't even know that a monarchy exists in Canadian government!

Most Americans don't hold any animosity toward monarchies. We're just bemused by them.

Maybe just different crowds? Most of the Americans I have spoken to were more Republican-leaning and very young (more or less 18), so I guess that's a bit of a biased sample lol. Opinions tended to range from being apathetic towards them, to downright hostile. And don't get me wrong lol. I don't want to leave the impression that EVERY American I've spoken to on this issue had these bizarre notions. There were quite a few who were actually pretty well-informed about the role of the monarchy in Canada. I was even impressed by it lol. Those people tended to be older, though.

I bet if polled, most Canadians wouldn't recognize that Queen Elizabeth II is our head of state, either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top