CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Many people call for the dissolution of the Monarchy in the United Kingdom, citing democracy and the cost of the royal family's maintenance. Other, more conservative people demand that the monarchy be kept. What do you think?
If she had any power or actual influence then maybe we should keep her. But do the MP's actually listen to her? No. They just nod their heads, shuffle her out of the door and get back to business.
The whole tourism argument is more of a shot in the foot. If millions of people around the world come to England just to see the Queen and not any of the other tourist attractions, then it only shows how shit England is. If the Queen goes I don't think people will stop coming to England - they'd just miss that part of the bus tour. We can leave Buckinham palace as a momentum to their legacy.
The royals are just a bunch of spoilt pansyboys and girls. They aren't like the past Kings, who'd be first into battle and last to retreat. Maybe they were bastards to the people, but atleast they did something. Nowadays they're cunts who fly army helicoptors to their girlfriend's house and blame it as a military exercise.
Monarchy's going to go anyway. After Prince Philip who do you see as a King??
If she had any power or actual influence then maybe we should keep her. But do the MP's actually listen to her? No. They just nod their heads, shuffle her out of the door and get back to business.
She controls the military. Parliament has to ask her permission to deploy it.
If millions of people around the world come to England just to see the Queen and not any of the other tourist attractions, then it only shows how shit England is.
People don't go to Paris solely to see the Eiffel Tower, but removing it would certainly decrease revenue.
The royals are just a bunch of spoilt pansyboys and girls.
You dirty, ungrateful bastard.
Nowadays they're cunts who fly army helicoptors to their girlfriend's house and blame it as a military exercise.
They're their helicopters.
Monarchy's going to go anyway. After Prince Philip who do you see as a King??
She controls the military. Parliament has to ask her permission to deploy it.
Has she ever said no? Went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think Blair ever actually asked her permission and if he did... she wouldn't have said no.
People don't go to Paris solely to see the Eiffel Tower, but removing it would certainly decrease revenue.
You're comparing the queen to Paris? Wonder of the world with an old hag?
You dirty, ungrateful bastard.
Not a nice way to talk about Prince Harry.....
They're their helicopters.
Well obviously they've done nothing wrong. Why they would lie about it I really don't know.
Prince William. It's called hereditary rule.
I see so this spoilt pansyboy who'd rather spend his time in a strip club is going to be King of England? Fucking brilliant...
Well at least you are not suffering from the delusion that the war was started over WMDs or links with Al Queda.
"Afghanistan
TERRORISTS."
What about US and British terrorism that has resulted in casualities that are orders of magnitude higher than those attributed to the Islamic extremists.
"Blair is a devil worshipping bastard."
Well i can't disagree with that.
"What would an ungrateful son of an immigrant know about such things?"
Wow, behind the veneer of being a respectful articulate debator lies the truth i.e. that you are an elitist bigot
I especially like the "ungrateful" jibe, truly amazing given the history between the UK and India.
"The prince is under no obligations to scum like you."
Again my friend saying a person is scum because they dislike the royals is quite discourteous, the roylas are just people held up on a pedestal by some archaic (and frankly stupid) tradition, thats my opinion on the matter, am i scum also?
Well at least you are not suffering from the delusion that the war was started over WMDs or links with Al Queda.
In truth, I am not aware of why the war was started, but I suspect that it was at least in part to stabilise the Iraqi oil industry. I have yet to think of another logical explanation, though that is no reason to suggest that no other exists. However, it has been my observation that wars are generally fought for selfish reasons.
What about US and British terrorism that has resulted in casualities that are orders of magnitude higher than those attributed to the Islamic extremists.
Well, sir, the ineptitude of the commanders of that conflict is regrettable, but ultimately the region is of absolutely no strategic value, so I suspect that the dissolution of the Taliban government was the primary reason for the war.
I do not approve of our coalition forces' tactics, but then the United States military has always favoured "Shock & Awe", and they pay little heed to who is killed during the process.
Consider the end of the second world war, for example. It is patent, when one understands something of Japanese culture, that a cessation of hostilities was feasible, but in a shocking act of cowardice, it was preferred to devastate two major cities and neutralise some 200,000 people, most of whom were civilians.
It may be distasteful to you and I, but I try to remember that war is war.
Well i can't disagree with that.
Who could? I am particularly amused by the vocation of his wife.
Wow, behind the veneer of being a respectful articulate debator lies the truth i.e. that you are an elitist bigot
First, I am a respectful debator, but when dealing with scum like kinda (and I suggest you view his profile to understand why I use this word), I feel no obligation to remain so.
Second, while "it is a truth universally acknowledged" that there is always a bigger fish, I do like to think that my proficiency with English is tolerable at least.
Third, I am an elitist and I do not and never will apologise for that.
Finally, I am something of a bigot, but in my experience almost everybody is, so I plead the human condition.
I especially like the "ungrateful" jibe
I'm glad. I too think it's a little strange when somebody is inducted from poverty into a nation by the grace of its denizens, is nourished by her wealth, educated by her schools, sheltered by her bosom, and then consistently insults and despises everything to do with it.
truly amazing given the history between the UK and India.
I'm not particularly interested in discussing this with you, because you are not a good historian and you never will be, for the simple reason that you judge every past act with a set of modern values, and always see the conqueror as the wrongdoer.
In my experience, things are always a little more complicated than that.
Again my friend saying a person is scum
I call kinda scum because he has suggested that I am a a homosexual on numerous occasions, has insulted my country in terms too rude to be repeated here, has used foul language against me in almost every single argument he has ever written and has even, when I used my own face as a profile image, called me ugly. Now, I care nothing for the opinion of an Indian on whether I look good or not, any more that I would trust my own opinion on the beauty of a Masai tribeswoman, but it is patent that he despises me, and I have every intention of returning the favour.
In future I shall thank you to consider your accusations a little more thoroughly.
the roylas are just people held up on a pedestal by some archaic (and frankly stupid) tradition
In my experience, tradition is rarely wholly stupid.
am i scum also?
No, sir, you simply have the tiresome habit of being self-righteous.
"In truth, I am not aware of why the war was started, but I suspect that it was at least in part to stabilise the Iraqi oil industry."
Although the question is a complex one it can nearly always be reduced to the countries strategic importance either due to the location, or how resource rich the country is, or sometimes the effect of the counry gaining independece needds to be prevented. You should read the following interviews:
"However, it has been my observation that wars are generally fought for selfish reasons."
Yes i beleive that to be somewhat of a truism.
"so I suspect that the dissolution of the Taliban government was the primary reason for the war."
I don't know exactly what the reasons were myself, dismantling of the Taliban was undoubtly one of them, in the wake of 9/11 it may also have been a knee-jerk reaction as the US had asked the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden, then they mistakenly asked for evidence, but the likelyhood of it being planned long before that is also high. either way Afghanistan was deemed important enough strategically to warrant an invasion.
"It may be distasteful to you and I, but I try to remember that war is war."
I have to take issue with this, by your logic the brutal take over of Tibet can be justified in the exactly the way.
"Third, I am an elitist and I do not and never will apologise for that."
Fair enough.
"Finally, I am something of a bigot, but in my experience almost everybody is, so I plead the human condition."
I must admit i was expecting a more retaliatory response. I can't really argue with your response as you are correct.
"nd then consistently insults and despises everything to do with it."
While this argument is definitely not without substance i beleive your argument is flawed in the sense that your nation would not be so wealthy had it not colonised a resource rich sub-continent like India.Therefore, when the descendants of the people who inhabited those places that were conquered in order to grow your empire come lookiing for some from of indemnification, are they not justified?
"and then consistently insults and despises everything to do with it."
I will admit that is indefensible.
"for the simple reason that you judge every past act with a set of modern values, and always see the conqueror as the wrongdoer."
I will admit i do suffer quite terribly from underdog syndrome but i can be fairly objective when i limit my emotional bias.
"In my experience, things are always a little more complicated than that. "
I agree completely, Britain was responsible for doing many wonderful things for the peoples of India, not least the construction of the rail network, i doubt India would have the rising economy it has today were it not for the steps towards modernisation instituted under British rule, however i would still contned that most of this development was done for selfish reasons.
"I call kinda scum because he has suggested that I am a a homosexual on numerous occasions,has insulted my country in terms too rude to be repeated here, has used foul language against me in almost every single argument he has ever written and has even, when I used my own face as a profile image, called me ugly."
Didn't know all that, i suppose i can't really blame you.
"In future I shall thank you to consider your accusations a little more thoroughly."
I shall.
"In my experience, tradition is rarely wholly stupid."
I think thats a matter of perspective, i think it is also dependent on what exactly the tradition is.
"No, sir, you simply have the tiresome habit of being self-righteous."
I suppose given the entire history of my posts i could definitely be accused of this but fortunately thats not how i actually am, i suppose i haven't really learned to loosen up on this site, i constantly debate serious issue and act as if im some kind of moral arbiter which is understandly annoying to anyone on the receiving end.
I have to take issue with this, by your logic the brutal take over of Tibet can be justified in the exactly the way.
I have given up trying to justify wars. They are simply conflicts, and it is a rare thing to find one side wholly innocent, and the other wholly evil.
While this argument is definitely not without substance i beleive your argument is flawed in the sense that your nation would not be so wealthy had it not colonised a resource rich sub-continent like India. Therefore, when the descendants of the people who inhabited those places that were conquered in order to grow your empire come lookiing for some from of indemnification, are they not justified?
That is not, to my prejudice, correct. It is the same fallacious logic that suggests that white people should pay reparations to black people for an offence that nobody alive today has committed. If the bastion of white wealth was black slavery, it stands to reason that with the abolition of slavery would inevitably come the dissipation of white domination of resources, or at least the collapse of those industrialists who utilised slavery.This is not the case, and never was.
The same for colonialism, a practice so damaging to Britain general interests that we cannot conceive as to why it was engendered, beyond blaming the interests of a wealthy elite. If, as you say, the wealth of the nation relied so heavily upon resources from India, we should expect to see an immediate collapse of all financial and industrial institution upon independence. This was not the case either.
It was British naval dominance and innovation that ensured her success and prosperity, with colonialism being a convenient device for the aggrandisement of the wealthy few.
I have argued before, that the vast majority of citizens in Britain during the height of the empire were practically slaves to the same wealthy few that propagated colonialism. To blame the descendants of slaves for one's own slavery at the hands of their masters is a ridiculous thing to do.
however i would still contned that most of this development was done for selfish reasons.
Input, output. That is the basis of all development.
I think thats a matter of perspective, i think it is also dependent on what exactly the tradition is.
Yes, even as I wrote the paragraph I considered genital mutilation as an exception. And everything religious, also. But I think one can take that as a given.
"and it is a rare thing to find one side wholly innocent, and the other wholly evil."
I would take issue with this and i would cite the three most recent interventions (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan & Libya) as examples.
"It is the same fallacious logic that suggests that white people should pay reparations to black people for an offence that nobody alive today has committed. "
I don't beleive that analogy to be entirely valid (although i must admit it isn't entirely invalid)
"If the bastion of white wealth was black slavery"
The bastion of white wealth had very little to do with black slavery, that was merely a product of white wealth or dominance that further contributed to while wealth, as opposed to being the bastion of it.
"it stands to reason that with the abolition of slavery would inevitably come the dissipation of white domination of resources, or at least the collapse of those industrialists who utilised slavery.This is not the case, and never was."
It's pretty clear that whilte dominance was sustained by much more than just black slavery, besides even if what you are asserting is true (and it isn't, at least not in the way you are proposing) the people with the power (in this case white imperialists) would inevitably engineer some means to maintain that wealth/earnings/power/influence/privilege, and would also develop some means to compensate themselves for the loss of wealth/etc. experienced due to the abolishment of slavery, at least in those cases where the aforementioned imperialists relied heavily on the wealth/etc. obtained from the trade.
"The same for colonialism, a practice so damaging to Britain general interests that we cannot conceive as to why it was engendered, beyond blaming the interests of a wealthy elite."
Well the elite's are the ones that usually make the decision in invade (and colonise) countries
"If, as you say, the wealth of the nation relied so heavily upon resources from India, we should expect to see an immediate collapse of all financial and industrial institution upon independence"
The collapse of all financial and industrial institutions, come on, your attempt to use reductio ad absurdum to disprove my piont is very weak indeed, the collapse of all British financial and industrial institutions does not logically follow on from the independence of one of its colonies. While you are correct in saying that the primary benefactor's of Britains colonial rule of India were a narrow sector of elite British society is still feel that you are grossly underestimating the accumulation of wealth experienced by Britain from occupying countries like india, this isn't merely due to extraction of the countries resources but also subjecting its people to slavery, now you say that the end of this occupation would have resulted in the collapse of the British economy but that is far too simplistic a view, although the British granted the coutnry independence im sure they still had a monopoly on who they traded with. Anyway the piont is Britains empire was sustained by the colonisation of resource rich countries like India, and Britains position as a wealthy developed country today is due in no small part to the colonisation of those countries e.g.
(although this document may well be biased it should still not be overlooked)
"It was British naval dominance and innovation that ensured her success and prosperity,"
I don't feel knowledgeable enough about the history of the British empire to be able to say with extreme confidence that this isn't the primary reason for Britains success and prosperity, and given that i don't really have the time to devote to researching it ill have to conceed this to you.
"I have argued before, that the vast majority of citizens in Britain during the height of the empire were practically slaves to the same wealthy few that propagated colonialism. "
I couldnt agree more with this, how many americans have really benefited from their countries empire and world dominance, they have the privelege of living in the worlds richest ocuntry but not a whole lot more than that.
"To blame the descendants of slaves for one's own slavery at the hands of their masters is a ridiculous thing to do."
Im not blaming anyone, im saying that i understand pakistani or Indian immigrant's feeling some sense of entitlement when they travel to Brtiain given what was done to their lands by their former colonial rulers.
"Input, output. That is the basis of all development."#
I would take issue with this and i would cite the three most recent interventions...
Well, as I see it, while the motivations were selfish, the war was prosecuted by one government that had no democratic mandate (that being the government of Mr. Tony Blair), against another government with no democratic mandate. In essence, it was a war of terror against a terrible government, wherein the populace on both sides were the victims of vile oppression. Admittedly the people of Iraq suffered far more. The Americans, whose opinion on the war is naturally divided, cannot be so described, but they were, as they always seem to be, victims of a campaign of disinformation.
As it stands, this avenue of reasoning causes many far deeper discussions on the nature of government to arise, which are not relevant to the debate.
Afghanistan, as we have discussed, cannot really be commented on yet; for we have only very limited information on the cause of the war, and the nature of our foe.
As regards the Libyan conflict, there is no evil involved. The use of air denial tactics is simply an opportunistic move by the North Atlantic Treatise Organisation's constituent governments. I think that it is an act of gross officiousness and entirely barren of better sense and judgement. We know near nothing of the rebels, and have thrown in out lot with them with almost no preparation. To interfere in a civil war may suit the French, but it is not behaviour becoming an Englishman, or an English government, and it quite surprised me. In hindsight, it seems also to be an extremely foolish move, as well as a reckless one; for it now seems that the forces of Gaddafi shall prevail, engendering a political situation far more precarious than the previous one. We certainly will not get our hands on the oil now, at any rate!
The bastion of white wealth had very little to do with black slavery, that was merely a product of white wealth or dominance that further contributed to while wealth, as opposed to being the bastion of it.
What is written above is exactly the case, sir. This is why reparations serve no purpose, and have no basis.
It's pretty clear that whilte dominance was sustained by much more than just black slavery, besides even if what you are asserting is true (and it isn't, at least not in the way you are proposing) the people with the power (in this case white imperialists) would inevitably engineer some means to maintain that wealth/earnings/power/influence/privilege, and would also develop some means to compensate themselves for the loss of wealth/etc. experienced due to the abolishment of slavery, at least in those cases where the aforementioned imperialists relied heavily on the wealth/etc. obtained from the trade.
I do not, sir, see how I can possible respond to this. It escapes me why you should contrive to defenestrate the situation that I have described as impossible and ludicrous.
the collapse of all British financial and industrial institutions does not logically follow on from the independence of one of its colonies
If what you have asserted to be the case is true, then I suspect it would have. India being by far the most prosperous colony, its loss would have utterly debilitated the British economy, had the exploitation of resources been its foundation economy. As I have said, it was not. There is no real national economic benefit to rapine exploitation of colonial resources. In fact, as we can observe in the history of Spain, a gratuitous influx of free luxuries, in this case gold, can be disastrous to the empire's prosperity.
The wealth of the nation was built upon twin bastions of naval trade and industry. At the time of the empire, n other nation in the sphere of the world could boast the technological and maritime supremacy of Great Britain and the empire would have been but a dream without it. Remember, sir, that Rome was great and prosperous long before Her empire arose.
It is an easy thing to say that the theft of resources made it rich, but it is not an easy thing to demonstrate. How exactly were they stolen? What exactly constitutes theft?
As it happens, the only resource that seems to fit your parameters is the human being. The slave trade, while quite prevalent, was not a significant buttress of the greater edifice.
Britains position as a wealthy developed country today is due in no small part to the colonisation of those countries
Again, sir, that is not actually demonstrable, or even logical. If anything, the empire was detrimental to the development of Great Britain. The East India Company certainly enjoyed a monopoly over Indian trade, but monopolies suit only the companies that maintain them and raise the cost of living for the greater populace of their indigenous nation. It serves the individual to much, and the general mass too little.
It is through competition that most advancement is made, and a period in which a nation has supremacy is ultimately detrimental to its extended development and prosperity.
Consider Germany, for example. By 1939 it had achieved technological dominance and could easily have defeated the entire gathered strength of the still prodigious empire, excepting maritime theatres. Today, despite the frustration of its colonial ambitions, Germany is one of the most advanced nations in Europe.
how many americans have really benefited from their countries empire
I must object to the term, as there is technically no empire. I cannot abide the use of connotation to make a point.
Im not blaming anyone, im saying that i understand pakistani or Indian immigrant's feeling some sense of entitlement when they travel to Brtiain given what was done to their lands by their former colonial rulers.
As I have previously said, that is ridiculous and as I have above demonstrated, entirely unfounded. What exactly, may I ask, was done?
Firstly, the power of the monarch was dramatically limited after the Restoration in 1659/1660. Cromwell's Republic did nothing for the country, in fact he weakened it severely and the people recognised that, hence Charles II was brought back from exile and reinstated as the rightful King. The monarch's power from then on was limited because, thats what the people disliked in the first place, they disliked the fact that kings could pretty much do whatever they want and call it 'the divine right'. As a result of this it is the House of Lords that holds the most power in Britain, however the Queen is required to assent to all Bills passed by Parliament- the Royal Assent has not been refused since 1707. The MPs do listen to her, in fact she is very much respected as she should be.
The Queen can summon Parliament or dissolve it and hse plays an active part in the ceremonial events which surround the running of the country. If the Prime Minister for example wished to dissolve Parliament he would have to ask the Sovereign's permission first. The Queen herslef opens Parliament every year. In fact there is only one occasion on which Parliament meets without Royal assent and that is when the Sovereign has died- the Succession to the Crown Act of 1707 requires that if Parliament is not already sitting then it must do so immediately.
The Queen symbolises our nation and our heritage and most of all our history. What other country in the world has had a history like ours? With kings and queens way dating back to the 4/5th centuries? The Queen is THE QUEEN of England (there is NO king)- Philip is Elizabeth's king-consort (there's a difference). The Queen is a direct descendant of Alfred the Great (which gives you just a little glimpse at how old and long her lineage really is) Alfred was king of Wessex and, for the most part, the king of the southern kingdoms from 871 to his death in 899. The next in line is (techincally Charles) but, I think the crown will pass to William (and then, obviously his children if he ends up having any) Which is a bit of a bummer for Harry if that does happen... I am proud of our heritage, so please before you mock it and claim that the Queen "does fuck all" read up on your history- it really pisses me off when people (like you) feel the need to insult our heritage without actually consulting some research first. Oh and as for "the whole tourism argument" people from all over the world to come to our country to see our historic buildings, houses, castles, palaces and cathedrals all that have stood the test of time and for most- two world wars. Oh and F.Y.I not all kings and queens "were the first into battle and the last to retreat" in fact not all moanrchs even got involved in the actual fighting part of war at all and I am delighted to inform you of this small fact too- only 3 English Kings have died on the battlefield- King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings 1066 killed by an arrow to the eye (from what the Bayeux Tapestry tells us anyway), King Richard I at the seige of Chalus in France in 1199 crossbow bolt to the neck deied three days later after the wound became infected and finally, King Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, a battle which ultimately decided the fate of the crown after years and years of civil war, he was mutilated by his own men because they realised that fate favoured the young Henry Tudor.
In the same way that the President does "fuck all".
"If she had any power or actual influence then maybe we should keep her."
She meets witht he Prime Minister weekly and is head of the Commonwealth she also recieves state papers daily, though she may excersice her power as much as the Prime Minister she has a lifetime to do it, whereas the Prime Minister only has 4 years, then everyone hates him.
" But do the MP's actually listen to her? No. They just nod their heads, shuffle her out of the door and get back to business."
Why would the Queen care what MP's think of her? In a few years most of them will be replaced. It should be the other way round, if the Queen likes an MP they stand to get a Lordship or other rewards.
"The whole tourism argument is more of a shot in the foot. If millions of people around the world come to England just to see the Queen and not any of the other tourist attractions, then it only shows how shit England is. "
The rest of it is too americanised, so England could be regarded as "shit".
"If the Queen goes I don't think people will stop coming to England - they'd just miss that part of the bus tour. We can leave Buckinham palace as a momentum to their legacy."
What would they come to see? The Houses of Parliment? We might as well say that the Elected part of Government costs too much and leave that part out of the tour. Plus, wherever the Queen goes the media follows, she doesn't represent a foggy little island on the edge of Europe but the head of a past imperial super power.
yes the queen does nothing of significant importance that she should be payed millions of dollars and we'd be nothing but hoarders clinging to sentimental value if we kept her.
While i do not agree that the British Royal family are responsible for more evil thorughout history than any other family you have to admit they have been responsible for a lot of pain and suffering over the centuries.
"I have yet to hear of any significant nation that has not."
Thats very true, but you have to admit given Britains position as the worlds superpower the scale suffering was a lot higher than any other significant nation.
Thats very true, but you have to admit given Britains position as the worlds superpower the scale suffering was a lot higher than any other significant nation.
Well sir, though much suffering was caused, that is a matter of perspective. I believe that Spain was the worst of all colonial powers, by virtue of its decision to eradicate the entire Aztec and Incan races (barring a few lonely villages which still subsist on scraps today). Now, our conduct in India was at times good, and at other times bad, but the Indian populace still remains ambivalent today. A sorer point in our history is the conflict over Ireland, perhaps, but I do not believe that either side in that struggle can absolve themselves of some particularly iniquitous crimes. It was mostly the neglect of the late Victorians, both at home and abroad, that led to the frustration of the peoples of the empire.
As a whole, however, I think that the British empire was, like every other empire in Earth's history, neither mostly bad, nor mostly good. I am quite proud, for example, that so many peoples are today united by language, custom and law, as has never before been possible. We are today at peace with those who have for the better part of a millennium been the bitterest of foes, our people are healthier and happier than we have ever known them to be and the nations' children are lifted from ignorance through universal education. I wholeheartedly believe that, despite its excesses, the British empire was ultimately and entity and a period that the western world needed to witness, to engender the era that we have today.
It's not perfect, naturally, but it is better than it has ever been.
Plenty. They are steeply involved in the deep satanic occult practices of Freemasonry.. like 33 degree which is the highest rank you can go. Most freemason's can't identify with it and don't even know about this different form of freemasonry and how crazy deep it goes. It's straight up Satanic Occultism.
The queen is a decorated high priestess. Prince Phillip is a 33 degree mason as well as almost the entirety of all the high officials that hold a position within the realm of the crown.. even most law officials - even to the police in almost its entirety. They hide it very well and do not speak of it.
This family is involved in some serious evil. It has been reported and investigated that it was indeed the "queen" who gave the order to kill Princess Diana. There is an entire documentary on it.. and IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED - ALL FACTS backed-up. The MI6 together with our FBI/Secret Service had been watching the Princess's every move. She became a threat after her infamous interview about Royal life and her marriage which was considered to be treasonous against the crown. For that she was murdered. And they have the power to cover it up.
I used to have the highest respect for the Royals.. but they are truly evil and they do heinous things with the power they wield, under a cloak of dignity and grace. They aren't even English for sobbing out loud... they ARE GERMAN!!! They have family who served under Hitler - FACT! How is it that the English people put up with such a deceptive lie?? I would think the fact that they are not even true Englishmen would be a BIG DEAL.
It is CRAZY how deep the rabbit hole of evil goes with the Royals. All within the walls of the high court and palace walls.
I hope there is something good in Prince William.. because of his mother. I don't know much about Harry.. but I believe he is Williams half brother from a former relationship Princess Diana had. Either way, I pray for the Duchess/Princess Kate and that God will truly protect her, and that she together with her William do great things for the English people.
But in all seriousness... the things the Royals are involved in will make the hairs on your head stand up.. and you will never see them with the same eyes again! For centuries they have practiced divination occultism, treachery and murder. They have A LOT of blood on their hands.
No more asshole-y than any other general group of people. Even given their relative fame and slight inbreeding, well, I'd even go so far as to say that they're doing quite remarkably not being assholes.
The royal family should be abolished. Any representation of a monarchy needs to be removed. It is an insult to individual power(or at least the illusion of it) which is the modern system of the world.
I will say this again, removing the Royal Family is damaging to our income as a country. Many Brits even fail to know that the Crown Estate Treasury boasts a 230 million profit handed straight back to government. The 70 or so million we paid out to the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh is petty in comparison. Do people really think the government would justify that kind of hand out without an income? Factor in all the job losses from the Crown Estate employees and the loss of revenue from tourism and we're headed for a massive loss.
"removing the Royal Family is damaging to our income as a country."
Tough luck, a decision cannot be thrown out simply because it seems bad in the short run. With the removal of such laughable symbols of monarchy comes opportunity to make new systems that may be even more advantaged then the current disgrace to world progress that is the royal family. The abolishment of the royal family in terms of national acknowledgement does not mean they will be striped of wealth and estate. They should be stripped of all executive powers and advantages just by simply being in the royal family.
"The 70 or so million we paid out to the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh is petty in comparison."
And why are they paid? For petty executive presence? For a middle man? They serve as a mere symbol, albeit a money making symbol but none the less.
" Do people really think the government would justify that kind of hand out without an income?"
Governments do love to play favorites.
" Factor in all the job losses from the Crown Estate employees and the loss of revenue from tourism and we're headed for a massive loss."
Really? The buildings that attract tourists would all be there, the estate would still need managing, the only change would be that we all stop pretending that the royal family's purpose has any place in modern structure.
Tough luck, a decision cannot be thrown out simply because it seems bad in the short run.
It's not in the 'short run' the loss of money will be hard to recover.
And why are they paid? For petty executive presence? For a middle man? They serve as a mere symbol, albeit a money making symbol but none the less.
Exactly, that's the point. I don't have mega heart love for the royal family, I just understand their presence as a massive source of income for the UK in more ways than one.
Really? The buildings that attract tourists would all be there, the estate would still need managing, the only change would be that we all stop pretending that the royal family's purpose has any place in modern structure.
Do you really think the Royal Family are going to give tourists visiting rights to their buildings if they're not being funded? Do you really think they are going to pass on the Crown Estate Treasury profit to the government if they halt funding? Of course they won't. Bearing in mind they'd be lacking the money for the up keeping of their buildings and extravagant lifestyle those Treasury profits will be kept for themselves. They don't have to hand the profits over.
Tough luck, a decision cannot be thrown out simply because it seems bad in the short run.
But in such cases it must be demonstrated that the suggested action would indeed carry long-term benefits. We contend that yours does not.
With the removal of such laughable symbols of monarchy comes opportunity to make new systems that may be even more advantaged
May I enquire, sir, as to whether you actually understand with what duties the royal family are charged with, and exactly where the boundaries of their power and influence lie?
Her Majesty does not dictate policy, she does not set tax rates, she does not oversee the maintenance of the highways or of public buildings. She does not issue planning permission, recruit police or perform any of the other responsibilities that belong to parliament.
Her major role is to command the utmost loyalty of the armed forces, and to serve as figurehead, a role to which she is as suited as any elected politician. In fact, I should go so far as to say that she is far better equipped in refinement and in breeding than many among the common mass of men and women.
The abolishment
Abolition. And to quote your own arguments "You should pay attention in English class, you appear to have a very weak grasp on correct sentence structure.".
of the royal family in terms of national acknowledgement does not mean they will be striped of wealth and estate. They should be stripped of all executive powers and advantages just by simply being in the royal family.
To be replaced by what?
And why are they paid? For petty executive presence? For a middle man? They serve as a mere symbol, albeit a money making symbol but none the less.
They are paid to maintain their estates and the elegance with which they, as our most prominent ambassadors, are presented to the world.
Governments do love to play favorites.
The major fault in libertarianism is that it assumes that governments are innately evil, while the governed are innately good.
Really? The buildings that attract tourists would all be there, the estate would still need managing, the only change would be that we all stop pretending that the royal family's purpose has any place in modern structure.
We reach a greater end by different means, sir. Do you have any substantial argument in favour of exsecting one of England's oldest and most hallowed traditions? Or are you content to masquerade moral indignation and libertarian malcontent as reason?
Her Majesty does not dictate policy, she does not set tax rates, she does not oversee the maintenance of the highways or of public buildings. She does not issue planning permission, recruit police or perform any of the other responsibilities that belong to parliament"
So in other words, she does nothing important in terms of economy and state security? Sounds vital.
"Her major role is to command the utmost loyalty of the armed forces, and to serve as figurehead"
Was she elected to that position? Is there a statue of limitation on the terms in which she is allowed this power? In the case of war would she be commander and chief?
"And to quote your own arguments"
You quoted my argument against a person who typed many sentences that made a toddler's writing ability look like college work. Regardless, "Abolishment is included in most dictionaries and appears frequently in all types of writing, but it is an unnecessary variant of abolition". My sentence still stands.
"To be replaced by what?"
The executive powers? That is for a legislative body to construct.
"They are paid to maintain their estates and the elegance with which they, as our most prominent ambassadors, are presented to the world."
So they get paid for owning big houses and looking royal?
"The major fault in libertarianism is that it assumes that governments are innately evil, while the governed are innately good"
I don't believe in evil or good as they are terms founded on religious thinking. I believe in that rights are the most important aspect of society. The way I view what a government should be structured on sprouts from this belief. The royal family is a tribute to a system that has oppressed countless people in history. That is my main problem with keeping the royal family rich, powerful, and worst of all revered.
"Do you have any substantial argument in favour of exsecting one of England's oldest and most hallowed traditions?"
A tradition honoring an oppressive system.
"Or are you content to masquerade moral indignation and libertarian malcontent as reason?"
What I perceive as moral has very little impact on my views. And if you see the belief in rights as the highest authority as malcontent fine, that is not the way I see it.
So in other words, she does nothing important in terms of economy and state security? Sounds vital.
You can either lament the power of an unelected individual, or deride a ceremonial position for its insipidity. You cannot, sir, do both.
Was she elected to that position?
Does she need to be? I am not a democrat, sir, so your argument shall have to constitute a little more than a moral plea.
Is there a statue of limitation
Aye, sir, it stands before the palace of Westminster and bears the inscription "Oliver Cromwell 1599 - 1658".
In the case of war would she be commander and chief?
Her authority is to approve a war that has been proposed by parliament.
My sentence still stands.
To stand, sir, is not a noble objective for one born with two functioning legs.
The executive powers? That is for a legislative body to construct.
So I am to understand that your position is a moral one rather than a technical one? I cannot see any way that it might be otherwise, as you have no actual suggestion. Why then do you take issue with and inquire so extensively after her actual role? And should you not actually know what that role is before declaring it an abhorrence and an offence against democracy?
So they get paid for owning big houses and looking royal?
You touch it with a needle. ؟
I believe in that rights are the most important aspect of society.
By definition, there can be no rights in an entirely free, libertarian world.
The royal family is a tribute to a system that has oppressed countless people in history.
There is no system of government that does not bear the marks of oppression. None whatever and I defy you, sir, to produce one.
A tradition honoring an oppressive system.
Should we tear down democracy because the Roman republic utilised a consular system? One imagines the Gauls of yore would think so.
What I perceive as moral has very little impact on my views.
You clearly have very little understanding of what is meant by the word "moral", sir. How can one base his beliefs on the rights of man without recognising a moral imperative to provide them?
And if you see the belief in rights as the highest authority as malcontent fine, that is not the way I see it.
As previously perceived, so you do continue. Your moral indignation at any form of subservience to any authority that you did not contrive, or even conceive, has led you to arbitrarily label rights as the utmost authority. But where do rights come from, sir? Who provides and protects them? In a truly libertarian society, is it not the strong who prosper and the weak, those who need rights, who suffer and perish? Incidentally that is quite close to my ideal philosophy, but that is not the subject of this debate.
Your only objection to the English monarchy seems to be that cannot be reconciled with your beliefs, and must therefore be deracinated. Yet you provide no clear motive for thinking so, nor do you see fit to present any rationale for their removal.
Purely democratic institutions are doomed to disintegrate into either tyranny or barbarism , and I do not hold your intellect in such high esteem as would compel me to dissent from the learned opinion of Lord Macaulay!
I had to do this twice as my first didn't show on the board for some reason.
"You cannot, sir, do both."
And just why not?
"Does she need to be? "
In my opinion yes. The only fair hell is one the people have chosen.
"it stands before the palace of Westminster and bears the inscription "Oliver Cromwell 1599 - 1658""
Lifelong power simply for being born?
"Her authority is to approve a war that has been proposed by parliament."
But would she act as commander and chief during the war or would her jurisdiction over military be handed over to a generals council?
"To stand, sir, is not a noble objective for one born with two functioning legs"
Nice one. Im using that next time I can.
"So I am to understand that your position is a moral one rather than a technical one?"
Depends if you view my stance as rights as a means of ensuring fair government that way. That is not the way I see it.
"I cannot see any way that it might be otherwise, as you have no actual suggestion. "
My suggestion is that the people need to design a system in which they hold elections that don't last for life n order to ensure the wants and opinions of following generations are honored and offered a chance.
"offence against democracy? "
Democracy has not existed since the greeks. It is an offense to the people.
"By definition, there can be no rights in an entirely free, libertarian world"
Depends on how you define free. Freedom as a whole is interpretative. Freedom dictated by basic rights is less so.
"There is no system of government that does not bear the marks of oppression. None whatever and I defy you, sir, to produce one."
I agree. Doesn't mean we can't strive towards it.
"Should we tear down democracy because the Roman republic utilised a consular system?"
Considering no true democratic state exists, no.
"How can one base his beliefs on the rights of man without recognizing a moral imperative to provide them?"
Such rights can be established on the grounds of knowledge of what happens when such rights aren't provided. Morality is an extreme variability. If such a term absolutely must be used to satisfy you, fine. I see it as wrong that a symbol of oppression is revered and honored as it is.
"label rights as the utmost authority. "
Okay? I see rights as the most important aspect of society that must be held over all other authority and must be protected by the executive branch in order for such rights not to be twisted and abused.
"But where do rights come from, sir? "
The people, who more then often base them on rights not provided by previous authority.
"Who provides and protects them?"
It is the people who chose the rights. It should be the duty of the executive branch to defend threats to those right both foreign and domestic. The power of the executive branch should not be connected to the people's choosing of rights save for a simple vote of the individual, which is where I disagree with the US system in which one man has the right to intrude on voted rights and laws and make decisions not agreed upon by the people.
"In a truly libertarian society, is it not the strong who prosper and the weak, those who need rights, who suffer and perish?"
All have equal rights, but yes, in an ideal libertarian world, the weak would perish. I am a believer in the survival of the fittest.
"Your only objection to the English monarchy seems to be that cannot be reconciled with your beliefs, and must therefore be deracinated. "
I see the sustainment of the royal family to glorify an oppressive system without any irreplaceable vital importance to justify keeping it.
"Purely democratic institutions are doomed to disintegrate into either tyranny or barbarism , and I do not hold your intellect in such high esteem as would compel me to dissent from the learned opinion of Lord Macaulay!"
Purely democratic states would lack an executive branch capable of defending rights, so I am not for a purely democratic state.
Because to claim that power must be a concession of the people is a valid argument only so long as one acknowledges that Her Majesty has any.
In my opinion yes. The only fair hell is one the people have chosen.
I wonder if you understand how the British system of governance works.
Lifelong power simply for being born?
The role of the modern British Monarch is to symbolise the nobility, the spirit and the magnificence of an edifice that has defined us for centuries. To preserve our history. To serve as an ambassador whose splendour and elegance cannot be matched by any other of the world's nations.
It is not to govern, as you seem to believe.
But would she act as commander and chief during the war or would her jurisdiction over military be handed over to a generals council?
Obviously the actual strategy would be dictated by the officers of war.
Nice one. Im using that next time I can.
De rien.
Depends if you view my stance as rights as a means of ensuring fair government that way. That is not the way I see it.
Not my meaning, sir. I meant that you seem to suggest that the Monarch should be deposed based on principle, rather than technicality, in which case you should stop discussing her actual powers, which are far more limited than you apparently imagine.
My suggestion is that the people need to design a system in which they hold elections that don't last for life n order to ensure the wants and opinions of following generations are honored and offered a chance.
Again, here is the issue. The Queen has no legislative powers, so this quite simply is not a valid argument.
Democracy has not existed since the greeks. It is an offense to the people.
Perhaps I should use the term representation from here on in. Democracy as a pure system is not an effective from of governance and cannot maintain order and stability. It would breed chaos and strife. What exactly do you find appealing about that?
Depends on how you define free. Freedom as a whole is interpretative. Freedom dictated by basic rights is less so.
Free, in this context, means unbound by authority. But Man is predisposed towards authority, and constructs it wherever He goes. That is an evolved trait that is conducive to survival. The libertarian world that you propose would not last for long before the physically strong would be overwhelmed by the organised and intelligent.
Considering no true democratic state exists, no.
That is an evasive answer. Should representation and all other forms of government be destroyed based on the universal history of abuse?
Such rights can be established on the grounds of knowledge of what happens when such rights aren't provided.
Removing the government that protects and ensures the provision of rights is no way to maintain them. That is, as I see it, what this debate is ultimately about; the rejection of any authority beyond popular desire.
The people, who more then often base them on rights not provided by previous authority.
No, that is a circumstantial account. The rights of man stem, in Europe, from the Magna Carta, which was an effort on the part of the barons, the equivalent of an executive branch, to curb the powers of the King. Oliver Cromwell, one of the greatest men to have ever lived, finished the process. The result, a constitutional monarchy and parliamentarian system was created, by which we are still governed today. This is the proper form of governance, as I see it, and is wholly superior to the corporatocracy of the United States, the inevitable end of a purely democratic system under capitalism.
It is the people who chose the rights.
You have yourself declared this to be false, as there are no democracies.
All have equal rights
And that is, precisely, none. There are no rights beyond those that are supported by those with the greatest strength.
I am a believer in the survival of the fittest.
As am I, but within an ordered society.
I see the sustainment
Sustenance. It is preferred to use a noun rather than a participle when referring to it with the definite article "the". As in "The resurrection of Christ", rather than "The resurrecting of Christ". I do not wish to be officious, but I think we should all strive for elegance in expression, especially in English, that most venerable and superior, king of all languages.
to glorify an oppressive system without any irreplaceable vital importance to justify keeping it.
If nothing more, they preserve something quintessentially English. You cannot expect to mourn its loss until it is gone.
"Because to claim that power must be a concession of the people is a valid argument only so long as one acknowledges that Her Majesty has any."
Did I say she had absolutely no power? If I did that was a mistake.
" I wonder if you understand how the British system of governance works."
I am aware of basic things, but not very may details. I'd be grateful if you would explain the system for members in parliamentary to pass new laws. And what are the terms of a member in parliament?
"It is not to govern, as you seem to believe."
Whether her powers are in policy or executive powers, I hold that they should not be hereditary.
"Again, here is the issue. The Queen has no legislative powers, so this quite simply is not a valid argument."
But she hold executive powers, which I believe should be run in legislative fashion.
"Democracy as a pure system is not an effective from of governance and cannot maintain order and stability. It would breed chaos and strife. What exactly do you find appealing about that?"
I agree. I not for a pure democracy. I believe in rights, and in that belief comes a firm believe in law. Order will be maintained through law, and law won't be abused by being kept in check by rights. It is a theoretical system, but one that has not had its chance to be carried out.
"Free, in this context, means unbound by authority"
Okay, but that is not how I define it.I define freedom as unbound personal choice when not in conflict with rights or law.Maximum potential utility if you will. This way of use can be taken in a very bad way if used in system like communism, but with the system I have in mind it works well enough.
"Should representation and all other forms of government be destroyed based on the universal history of abuse?"
I have no effective rebuttal. I yield.
" The libertarian world that you propose would not last for long before the physically strong would be overwhelmed by the organised and intelligent."
Such problems are present in all ideologies. Never will I claim to have to perfect system, I just have the one that fits with how I view people and the world.
"corporatocracy of the United States, the inevitable end of a purely democratic system under capitalism."
I agree that that the thought and purpose behind our founding has been greatly twisted.
"You have yourself declared this to be false, as there are no democracies."
Democracy is not the only ideal in which the people are the source of power.
"And that is, precisely, none. There are no rights beyond those that are supported by those with the greatest strength"
And? As long as the weak are disposed of through the intent of the people im fine.
"As am I, but within an ordered society"
I am as well, we just differ on the form of order.
"but I think we should all strive for elegance in expression, especially in English, that most venerable and superior, king of all languages."
Agreed.
"If nothing more, they preserve something quintessentially English. You cannot expect to mourn its loss until it is gone"
Okay, I admit I do not hold the tradition dear as you might. But in my opinion, such a position shouldn't be gained by birth. Elections should be held, at least once every generation.
I'd be grateful if you would explain the system for members in parliamentary to pass new laws.
The House of Commons has the sovereign right to propose financial or mainly financial bills. In the case of such a bill being proposed, after much discussion and consultation, it is read in the House of Commons for a first time, at which there is no debate. Two weekends after that, a second reading is made, whereafter the bill's principle aims are discussed. A vote then takes place. A bill that is not financial in nature may be proposed in either House. The House of Lords retains the ability to amend delay any bill, except, per the Salisbury convention, legislation promised by a government's election manifesto.
Her Majesty then gives Royal Assent to the bill, which becomes law. The Monarch also retains the right to make treaties, declare war and dissolve parliament.
But she hold executive powers, which I believe should be run in legislative fashion.
It is a wise thing to check the powers of the parliament itself by vesting prerogative powers in the monarch. It is an unwise thing to vest all powers in one institution, or even in one system of governance.
I believe in rights, and in that belief comes a firm believe in law. Order will be maintained through law, and law won't be abused by being kept in check by rights. It is a theoretical system, but one that has not had its chance to be carried out.
But the primary purpose of law is to ensure that the strong do not harm the weak. If you consider that to be a desirable end, why do you place such emphasis on the rule of law?
I have no effective rebuttal. I yield.
Noble.
Such problems are present in all ideologies. Never will I claim to have to perfect system, I just have the one that fits with how I view people and the world.
Then would you do me the honour of defining your model in its entirety?
Democracy is not the only ideal in which the people are the source of power.
A populace that is either contented or subdued is the only source of power.
As long as the weak are disposed of through the intent of the people im fine.
But the people are fickle and greedy. They are impulsive, irascible and dispose to level blame at convenient figures. Should they be granted licence to destroy whomever they wished, they would ultimately destroy only themselves.
Observe how people who contrive to subsist on public welfare, whether for reasons of apathy, sloth or dire necessity, are ultimately fixed upon by the public's wrath in times of economic contraction.
I am as well, we just differ on the form of order.
To my conception, order is a state in which Man may prosper under the protection of the law, by the bounty of a structured economy and in the security of a professional standing army.
But in my opinion, such a position shouldn't be gained by birth.
The position of monarch would appeal only to the vain and the egotistical. Should we rather elect one from a pool of such people or have the role pass to one who is born into it, and raised form birth to fulfil it?
What an american way of thinking, the only difference between our Queen and your President is that you elect yours and somehow that let's you believe you have an individual choice in the matter.
I'm sorry if you were offended, I'm just fed up of other americans on this site knowing nothing about history or Geopolitics and then making statements like "the Royal Family should be abolished".
You think your Royals are evil.. the American government is no different. These jokers practice Satanic worship too. YES! It is FACT and there is documentary PROOF that they do.. and are involved in secret societies. It's disgusting! They attacked our own nation (9/11) and blamed it on Iraqi's. Using our nation to rally behind them to go to war. While we took the bate and true patriots.. and our soldiers paid with their lives, in the name of a business deal "OIL". THIS IS FACT and also has documentary PROOF. Watch "LOOSE CHANGE" Yet even with all the evidence that it was an inside job, Americans refuse to truly believe it.. even get down right offended if you say otherwise.
FACT: In America, the person who will be chosen to win the Presidency is decided 2 years in advance, prior to the elections. YUP! And literally almost the WHOLE of our nation does not even know that it is already pre-determined. It is a sick game. They make everyone think there is an actual electoral debate.. but the TRUTH IS they already know and have decided on who it will be. It's disgusting how they lie to the American people.. and we fall for it! They are master manipulators and liars and we are the ones who take the fall for their treachery, thievery and lies - the American government officials.. NOT the American people - have mad blood on their hands too. They have so much evil cover up.. that there are no words to identify the evil they do and inflict. If only people knew the truth. But even still.. most likely they wouldn't believe it anyway. TRAGICALLY SAD!
Our president speaks nonsense all the time and make it as if it is the voice of the American people, putting words in our mouth against things and other nations that we ourselves would never participate in or even agree with.. when the words are clearly his.. NOT of Americans! He spins it and pins it on us! He's a cunning smooth talker.. and knows how to spin his words like the crooked salesmen he is. No wonder the world thinks we're arrogant, hurtful people who are bullies and walk all over everyone. It's because we have people within our government offices who do what they want, when they want.. where they want, and how they want. While the rest of the country has no clue that they devise and manipulate, and murder - while we Americans are sleeping. But hey, that's our president and government for you.
They are no better than your Royals.. they're all in the same club. They are all filthy!
Fact is GOD SEES EVERYTHING! And they will all get there's in the end.
we don;t need no stupid queen or princess or prince they are nothing but mere distraction all they ever do spend ridiculous amounts of money with our tax money goes to them then goverment making our country look pathetic by saying we can;t protest or fact the goverment hiding secrets from us about the parasites of palace all this is distraction just to make people like us not see they are actually being paid to be a phony royal plus fact the queen is german not english so goverment is wrong and i wish those stupid people called paparazzi would be gone too
YES IM SICK AND TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT YOUR PATHETIC URCHIN OF PHONY PAID ROYAL ASS FIRST CLASS PARASITES I WANT THEM REMOVED SO I CAN GET ON MY WORK,GET MY MONEY RIGHT TIME NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT STUPID FESTIVALS MEAN NOTHING THAT MIDDLE CLASS SEEM TO DELIGHT IN PICKING ON POOR CLASS WELL STOP IT NOW!!!!!!! BECUASE I CAN TELL YOU THIS I KNOW LOT POOR PEOPLE FROM POOR CLASS THEY ARE POLITE COMPARED TO THE WAY YOU TREAT THEM AND YES IM IN MIDDLE CLASS TOO BEFORE YOU START ACCUSING ME BEING THE POOR CLASS LOW LIFE FIRST OF ALL YOU WANT TO KNOW THE REAL ROYALS ITS US NOT THAT PARASITE KATE OR ELIZABETH OR BLOODY CHARLES,WILLIAM,CAMILLA WE CROWNING GLORY WHO WORK HARD WE ARE KINGS AND QUEENS BEING ROYAL ISN;T ABOUT BEING COVERED ALL OVER STUPID DIAMONDS AND GEMS ITS THE HEART IS JEWEL AND OUR FAMILYS THE REAL ROYALTY UNITED KINGDOM IF YOU DON;T LIKE IT THATS MY OWN OPINION FEEL FREE TO RANT YOUR ARGUEMENT BUT THATS HOW I FEEL AND IM NOT JEALOUS BEFORE YOU STATE THATS END OF MY RANT WHY I SAID YES
These people belong to a past where we had no say, no power and were ruled with dictatorial powers. I have no love for them, and they still wield power, albeit much reduced.
I am disturbed that there is no mechanism to remove the queen and the royal family! I don't want to have a system of control in place (the queen) who can declare war, pass or refuse laws and who can promote her son on a whim to Field Marshall!
With no mechanism to remove them -they have dictatorial powers. I'm also disturbed the life they lead of privilege and wealth, it is nauseating when the rest of us have to work each day just to pay the bills.
That is not to say I reject wealth and business. I believe any business person/entrepreneur who make and keep the economy are entitled to wealth, and should be congratulated -they have earned it.
The royal family is a total farce and for anyone to support it needs to think and open their mind beyond the brainwashing. We could remove them and keep our democracy and our history intact.
Actually the monarchy are not monstrous dictators, in fact in the past the monarch was very much well respected. In medieval hierarchy the Sovereign was anointed by God and was therefore, second (if you rule out the Pope) to God himself.
Just look at the last time England did away with the monarchy in 1649- Charles I's execution marked a long ten years of unhappiness, fear and trepidation for the people. Oliver Cromwell's Republic did nothing to help the country as a whole and actually did more harm than good when taking into consideration the current relationship between Britain and Ireland (southern Ireland especially).
Who is this tithead is quoting what happened in the 15th/16th centuries as an example of what would happen NOW TODAY 21st century if the queen were removed from power?
What kind of tit writes such shit? WE ARE NOT GOING TO HJAVE A CIVIL WAR IF THE QUEEN IS REMOVED. NO ONE WILL CARE A JOT. GOD GIVE ME STRENGTH how can people be so thick as to write such utter drivel??
Get her out now, and spend the money saved on the hospitals that would be closed otherwise, The queen is just another woman, shes no more important than the many patients who need treatment.
I would appreciate if you could be a perhaps a little more diplomatic when disagreeing with somebody on here, but I am not so sure that you know how to be. I quoted history because it happened. It's fact moron. I don't know if you haven't noticed but what has happened in the past helps us work towards the future; so the fact that the dissolution of the monarchy didn't work out too well IN THE PAST, then what good will it do now? Calm down and state your point with a little more dignity and then, just maybe, people will take your argument seriously.
ANd theres no God, so all your theory that they should have power because they were annointed by God is based on fallacy. So you support people just conning their way into power.
Well done with that argument. but dont try and con people on this thread.
It is of very little consequence, i highly doubt that the royal estates "earn" money comparable by what your people pay in taxes, granted you do have excellent health care though.
Its not 1649 anymore is it?? I cant believe how many references ive heard to the 16th and 16th centuries i mean come on people its literatley been 400 years ago before usa even declared independence. Im sure things have changed just a tad bit LOL
They're absolutely pointless. No one takes the UK seriously because they still have a monarchy. It is antiquated and ridiculous. Some old bitch shouldn't have the same power as a man who is able to earn his way into presidency or prime minister. They should all be lined up against a wall and shot, and I hope in my life time the brits come around and do just that. I hope it's televised. They are scum, every single one, with absolutely nothing good to give to the country or the world. Anyone with a brain realizes this. They don't see "commoners" (WHY DO WE EVEN USE THAT WORD IN 2012) as real people, we are below them. Well, let's show them who has the real power. Get rid of them, make them live like real people. All you monarchy lovers are idiots. In the words of the Sex Pistols, God Save the Queen, she ain't no human being!
Yes, i believe the queen should be impeached. Technically speaking, as monarch of england, she owns over 6,600 million acres of land, thats 1/6th of earths total landmass, and yet we still have things like world hunger. Corn is 150 american dollars per ton with 5-6 dry tons of corn per acre(15 wet tons). Do the math. There is no reason for even a single person to go hungry, yet i watch as the world gets exponentially worse every year, and one of the most powerful people in the world does nothing but soak up the spoils of robbing brits of your taxes. She sits with a jeweled crown on her head while she is a useless puppet to be paraded about by her government. I want to see a world without isis, without watching a quarter of the world starve while 1% of the population controls all money simply to do nothing with it. All wealth should be re-distributed and given to those with dreams. The rich only want to stay wealthy, the poor want to be wealthy, they have the ideas and it was poor people with dreams who made the industrial revolutions, something that will save the economy of the u.s. and our english friends
Abolish the Monarchy. The monarchy is pointless, it's no advantage to the country and it's costly to keep. Historically it was important for the country but now it's old fashioned. The king/queen does nothing and the tax payers have to keep her going for nothing in return. They are uneeded now, old fashioned and outdated. It's time to move on.
NO NO NO. Independence was to get rid of the Queen, not to support her. So the American Equivalent of removal of the royals is to increase the value of the Declaration of Indepenence ACTUALLY. Its you who is suppporting the Queen not the Americans.
Ad NO NO THERE IS NO ENGLISHMAN ALIVE WHO FOUGHT FOR THE MONARCHY, AND THE ONES WHO DID WERE CONNED INTO IT WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN FREE TO TEND TO THEIR FAMILIES.
That is a pretty good analogy. The declaration of Independence is a fairly out-dated draft, yet Americans still hold dear it's core message that is represents.
I am sure the royal family must have some simlar representation to the british public, like that of British strength and endurance thoughout the ages.
The American government/congress HAS ALREADY PISSED AND SET FIRE to the Declaration of Independence AND Don't get me started on the Constitution! Literally the WHOLE of America doesn't know that they have changed and altered these documents to suit the agenda of the government.. so they can take away our rights, freedoms and make us subservient - until America is no longer America and Americans can no longer identify with "America, home of the free, home of the brave" .. but more like "America, home of the imprisoned, home of the slave"
Where are the true Englishmen who are sitting on the throne? There are none! They don't exist because they are all German and of German descent. Unfortunately, the Monarchy of a TRUE Englishmen sitting on the throne disappeared a long time ago and has long been destroyed. The Monarchy lies.. and they have their secrets.. they've taken generations of Englishmen who have fought and died for their evil and selfish reasons. No more Englishmen need to die for the Monarchy.
From an economic standpoint, keeping the monarchy is far more sensible than dissolving it. The paltry £50,000,000 that constitutes the royal allowance is far exceeded by the amount of money generated by tourists who come to see them.
From a political standpoint, removing The Queen would result in appointment of an elected president, who would play essentially the same role and would in all probability maintain exactly the same powers in regards to military policy.
Of course, as a monarchist, my view is hopelessly biased, but I view it as an act of treachery to call for The Queen's removal, in Her own country of all places! Such vulgar sedition should not be tolerated.
Tourists would still come to see the historic buildings that the UK has to offer. If the monarchy was removed all current residencies could be opened up to the public generating huge revenue.
Removal of the archaic mechanisms of government would lead to a renewal of politics and the political process. No more undemocratic orders or legal backdoors that politicians could use to hide their activities (see link).
Tourists would still come to see the historic buildings that the UK has to offer.
Without the Queen, Buckingham palace would be a shell. Do not try to impose foreign political values upon a nation which has been a constitutional democracy for three and a half centuries, and a monarchy for even longer. Thousands of people come to England specifically to see the changing of the guard and other royal-related attractions. The monarchy is embedded in the heart of England, to remove it would be foolish in the extreme.
If the monarchy was removed all current residencies could be opened up to the public generating huge revenue.
The palace is open as it is. What's the point in going to the others? "This used to be the home of the monarchy. Now it's just a tourist gimmick".
Removal of the archaic mechanisms of government
Democracy pre-dates British monarchy.
would lead to a renewal of politics and the political process.
That's naive.
No more undemocratic orders or legal backdoors that politicians could use to hide their activities
"Thousands of people come to England specifically to see the changing of the guard and other royal-related attractions" NO YOU SILLY FOOL, THE GUARD CAN STILL CHANGE WITHOUT HER. OR ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE QUEEN IS NECESSARY FOR THE GUARD TO PULL ON THEIR TROUSERS??
"This used to be the home of the monarchy. Now it's just a tourist gimmick" ITS A TOURIST GIMMICK NOW.
"Democracy pre-dates British monarchy" THEN REMOVE THE MONARCHY, SINCE ITS NOT DEMOCRATIC. THX FOR THE SUPPORT.
"Politicians always find a way" BUT THE ROYALS WOULD HAVE TO FIND A JOB.
Beware, gentlemen! This fellow types with Caps Lock on!
THE GUARD CAN STILL CHANGE WITHOUT HER.
And what, pray, would they guard? Surely you do not suggest we that replace genuine tradition with spurious pageantry?
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE QUEEN IS NECESSARY FOR THE GUARD TO PULL ON THEIR TROUSERS?
Ah, humour. How insipid.
ITS A TOURIST GIMMICK NOW
I think the political institution of the British monarchy, has existed for longer than tourism has; it's importance to the legislature of the nation, though reduced, has not been relegated to the fanciful embellishment that you claim it has become.
THEN REMOVE THE MONARCHY, SINCE ITS NOT DEMOCRATIC
It must be demonstrated that democracy is objectively superior to monarchy, or even to a limited constitutional monarchy, before such a recommendation can be considered to be more than the facile and lazy attempt at logic, that it appears to be.
BUT THE ROYALS WOULD HAVE TO FIND A JOB
They already have jobs.
I would ask if you had ever served as an ambassador, but then I'm sure that you are actually the minister plenipotentiary to the courts of Europe. I might also have asked if you had ever served in the military, but then I'm sure the answer would come "I'm actually a deadly Navy Seal/Paratrooper/Royal Marine/Special Air Serviceman/Spetznatz commando... et cetera.
Though I'm quite sure that all of the above roles require a basic literacy test.
Removing Her Majesty the Queen, would mean confusion and pubic unrest in England. Many people would be vying for power. I can just see a civil war breaking out with the removal
well done you can spit out some useless song. shes a danger to our freedom in the way that she can, if I'm not mistaken,
· declare war and send troops abroad;
· to make international and European treaties;
· to make appointments and award honors;
· to make major changes to the structure of government
that to me, is a blatant insult to the people. and no amount of titles should ever make her opinion and choices more important then the average citizen
The Queen requires only 1-2% of British Taxpayers money to continue her job, not only does she represent great cultural significance but the Royal Family also works as a irreplacable tool of diplomacy. If it wasn't for the Queen the Commonwealth may already have been dissolved causing one of the greatest political, social clubs of history to end.
I would have voted abolish a month ago. No one should get to rule solely because of the family they were born into.
But now that you voted to Brexit I'll vote to keep them, because frankly you're so screwed right now you might actually need the royals to take charge again at some point.
