1. 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?

Discussion in 'Political Debates' started by Sultan Of Swing, May 23, 2011.

  1. Sultan Of Swing

    Sultan Of Swing Active Member

    Messages:
    912
    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...
     
  2. Flankerl

    Flankerl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,588
    Religion:
    Judaism
    What power? She doesnt hold any power at all.
     
  3. Nerthus

    Nerthus Wanderlust

    Messages:
    1,459
    Religion:
    LDS
    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.
     
    Badran likes this.
  4. Sultan Of Swing

    Sultan Of Swing Active Member

    Messages:
    912
    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.
     
  5. Sultan Of Swing

    Sultan Of Swing Active Member

    Messages:
    912
    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.
     
  6. lunakilo

    lunakilo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,050
    Religion:
    Between religions
    Hmm, Many of your neighboring countries ar monarchies to :)

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

    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?
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2011
    Badran likes this.
  7. Willamena

    Willamena Just be there, doing that

    Messages:
    31,955
    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.
     
  8. Rakhel

    Rakhel Honey badger.

    Messages:
    7,817
    For Lunakilo

    Prince Harry in the Arctic circle
    [​IMG]
     
  9. kai

    kai ragamuffin Staff Member

    Messages:
    16,610
  10. lunakilo

    lunakilo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,050
    Religion:
    Between religions
    I feel better now :)
     
  11. Sultan Of Swing

    Sultan Of Swing Active Member

    Messages:
    912
    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..
     
  12. Willamena

    Willamena Just be there, doing that

    Messages:
    31,955
    It's entirely possible that he'll simply forfeit the throne to William.
     
  13. Sultan Of Swing

    Sultan Of Swing Active Member

    Messages:
    912
    Naahhh, I think he wants the throne.
     
  14. Father Heathen

    Father Heathen Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,226
    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.
     
    Badran likes this.
  15. lunakilo

    lunakilo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,050
    Religion:
    Between religions
    A relic probably, but useless...
    In principle, you are right.
    But in real life there things are often quite different.
    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 :)
    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.
     
  16. Flankerl

    Flankerl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,588
    Religion:
    Judaism
    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? ;)
     
  17. kai

    kai ragamuffin Staff Member

    Messages:
    16,610
  18. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Oldest Heretic

    Messages:
    11,702
    Religion:
    Anglican...heretic
    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.
     
  19. Jaiket

    Jaiket Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,178
    I cannot think of a single compelling argument for the monarchy.
     
  20. Yukon

    Yukon New Member

    Messages:
    46
    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?
     
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted