The Monarchy. Why?

MVW · 27-04-2008, 11:44 PM

Can someone tell me why, in a logical manner, they love the Monarchy? (or why I should?)

Northumbrian · 27-04-2008, 11:53 PM

I don't love the royal family or even like them, but at the same I don't want to see the monarchy abolished.
Just simply that there is no evidence to suggest a politician becoming a president in a republic would improve what we have now. And to consider changing something that's been part of our history for over 1000 years would require a strong reason.

Akria · 27-04-2008, 11:59 PM

I share Northumbrian's opinion but not his reasoning.
My reasoning is more 'why change something that isn't, as far as I can tell, broken?'.

Internationalist · 28-04-2008, 12:10 AM

There is a pragmatic case for keeping a monarch as a Head of State who is 'above politics', which I would prefer to an executive presidency or a job for a political time-server.

However, I'm not sure that we should love the monarchy as such. We might have an affection for a monarch who has served us well over a long period of time, but that is more about the personal qualities of the monarch rather than the office.

Akria · 28-04-2008, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unionist

There is a pragmatic case for keeping a monarch as a Head of State who is 'above politics', which I would prefer to an executive presidency or a job for a political time-server.

However, I'm not sure that we should love the monarchy as such. We might have an affection for a monarch who has served us well over a long period of time, but that is more about the personal qualities of the monarch rather than the office.

Yes, it seems less open to corruption as a system.

As for the second paragraph, a good point. The office itself is largely stripped bare of all power except the theoretical, and it would cause political crisis if a monarch were to actually use it. Any like of the monarch therefore should be based on the person, not the position.

MVW · 28-04-2008, 12:26 AM

What about the trampling of your freedom to maintain their lifestyle?

If the monarch is stripped of power, then why is it that you think they'd have to be replaced by a presidency? If they dont do anything of any real political purpose then there is no vacuum to fill.

Internationalist · 28-04-2008, 12:43 AM

If the monarch was not replaced then the prime minister would become the de facto Head of State. I doubt that many would find that preferable.

Akria · 28-04-2008, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MVW

What about the trampling of your freedom to maintain their lifestyle?

If the monarch is stripped of power, then why is it that you think they'd have to be replaced by a presidency? If they dont do anything of any real political purpose then there is no vacuum to fill.

I don't feel that my freedoms are being trampled. I might pay extra taxes, or rather I will when I am required to do so, but given that they help boost tourism... *shrugs*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unionist

If the monarch was not replaced then the prime minister would become the de facto Head of State. I doubt that many would find that preferable.

Keep the buggers where you can see them, as they say.

MVW · 28-04-2008, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unionist

If the monarch was not replaced then the prime minister would become the de facto Head of State. I doubt that many would find that preferable.

With a real constitution would it not be preferable?

Internationalist · 28-04-2008, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MVW

With a real constitution would it not be preferable?

All constitutions are able to be corrupted. Would you rather have judge-made law than parliamentary democracy?

27-04-2008, 11:44 PM	#1 (permalink)
MVW Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Manchester , UK Posts: 37	The Monarchy. Why? Can someone tell me why, in a logical manner, they love the Monarchy? (or why I should?)

27-04-2008, 11:59 PM	#3 (permalink)
Akria Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Grimsby, NELincs Posts: 2,477 Party: None	I share Northumbrian's opinion but not his reasoning. My reasoning is more 'why change something that isn't, as far as I can tell, broken?'. __________________ I am getting very tired of people not reading my posts properly. Please do not reply to me unless you are sure you have not missed out the key points I am making and key words I am using. http://real-democracy.co.uk \| Admin and proud The commonality of mankind: If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

27-04-2008, 11:53 PM	#2 (permalink)
Northumbrian Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, England Posts: 1,463 Party: Free England Party	I don't love the royal family or even like them, but at the same I don't want to see the monarchy abolished. Just simply that there is no evidence to suggest a politician becoming a president in a republic would improve what we have now. And to consider changing something that's been part of our history for over 1000 years would require a strong reason.

28-04-2008, 12:10 AM	#4 (permalink)
Internationalist Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,118	There is a pragmatic case for keeping a monarch as a Head of State who is 'above politics', which I would prefer to an executive presidency or a job for a political time-server. However, I'm not sure that we should love the monarchy as such. We might have an affection for a monarch who has served us well over a long period of time, but that is more about the personal qualities of the monarch rather than the office.

28-04-2008, 12:26 AM	#6 (permalink)
MVW Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Manchester , UK Posts: 37	What about the trampling of your freedom to maintain their lifestyle? If the monarch is stripped of power, then why is it that you think they'd have to be replaced by a presidency? If they dont do anything of any real political purpose then there is no vacuum to fill.

28-04-2008, 12:43 AM	#7 (permalink)
Internationalist Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,118	If the monarch was not replaced then the prime minister would become the de facto Head of State. I doubt that many would find that preferable.