Jump to content
talkfootball365
  • Welcome!

    Tired of Kevins and Karens on Facebook and other social media platforms?

    Our forum is completely focused on football and moderated to keep discussions civil. Sound good? Sign up!

Monarchies


football forum
 Share

Recommended Posts

What is your opinion on monarchies? I use to be very anti-monarchy. I still don't want a monarchy because it is an un-elected head of state. Regardless of whether her powers are limited the queen still has more power and rights and privileges than you or me and this is simply because she was born into it. I can't agree with that personally. However if there was a vote tomorrow to keep or abolish it would definitively be kept by quite a big margin I would imagine.
So even though I don't went one British people clearly do so I have to except that and I can't argue we should get rid of it when so many people want one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sign up to remove this ad.
  • Replies 10
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My overriding attitude to the monarchy is apathy.

In theory, I find the concept abhorrent, and I think that having a monarchy in Britain does in a subtle way feed into a national attitude of servility and deference to our social superiors. 

On the other hand, some of the most socially equal countries in the world have monarchies. Denmark culturally is far less divided along class lines, and yet they have a Queen too. 

Plus, constitutionally, I think that it's important to have a somewhat neutral head of state - or someone who can act with the trust of a very large majority of the population. This makes Parliamentary Republics with more ceremonial Presidencies work very well in countries which are less polarised politically - like Ireland or Germany, where figures like Michael Higgins or Joachim Gauck are widely liked and trusted - but I find it very hard to imagine anyone in Britain who could fill that kind of role in the U.K.

I don't think Britain is politically mature enough to be a republic. 

Edited by Inverted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw that Facebook post a few months ago about how much money the royal family actually makes for the UK overall.

I guess people wouldn't vote to abolish the monarchy, however if there had never been one they also wouldn't vote to create one, which for me goes to show that the result of that little referendum would be more to do with people preferring to cling to nostalgia and tradition over change and less to do with anything politically or socially motivated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

I saw that Facebook post a few months ago about how much money the royal family actually makes for the UK overall.

I guess people wouldn't vote to abolish the monarchy, however if there had never been one they also wouldn't vote to create one, which for me goes to show that the result of that little referendum would be more to do with people preferring to cling to nostalgia and tradition over change and less to do with anything politically or socially motivated.

I think the problem with saying  the monarchy generate so much money is it quite debatable. When there are debates on it monarchy supporters are careful when using that argument. For example Buckingham palace is closed for most of the year. If the monarchy wasnt here any more it would still be  historic landmark which would generate money and could be opened all year. Obviously royal weddings generate a lot of money but they aren't a regular occurrence. At the same time if there was no support for a monarchy there wouldn't nearly so much money generated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Inverted said:

My overriding attitude to the monarchy is apathy.

In theory, I find the concept abhorrent, and I think that having a monarchy in Britain does in a subtle way feed into a national attitude of servility and deference to our social superiors. 

On the other hand, some of the most socially equal countries in the world have monarchies. Denmark culturally is far less divided along class lines, and yet they have a Queen too. 

Plus, constitutionally, I think that it's important to have a somewhat neutral head of state - or someone who can act with the trust of a very large majority of the population. This makes Parliamentary Republics with more ceremonial Presidencies work very well in countries which are less polarised politically - like Ireland or Germany, where figures like Michael Higgins or Joachim Gauck are widely liked and trusted - but I find it very hard to imagine anyone in Britain who could fill that kind of role in the U.K.

I don't think Britain is politically mature enough to be a republic. 

Good point. But at the same time the queen doesn't make alot of decisions so is it really making a massive difference. I'm sure there would be some way to have a head of state who is more neatral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Devon Von Devon said:

Isn't the queen of England is still the owner of Australia and New Zealand ?

She can even dismiss the government in both countries whenever without a reason ?

Technically there's a lot of stuff like that in Westminster constitutions. Parliament "could" just vote to dissolve the Scottish Parliament and do it with no legal hindrance. The Queen "could" refuse to recognise a popularly elected government. 

The system is more based on trust and conventions of behaviour than strict legal limits on power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Harvsky said:

They'd be on their way out after the Queen if it wasn't for Diana and her OK magazine kids.

The monarchy were becoming unpopular in Britain at the start of the millennium. I think william and harry have been a big part of the growth in popularity. Like I said I'm not a monarchist but I do like william and Harry. William seems like the kind of bloke you have a chat with down tje2 pub. Probably about football

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gunnersauraus said:

The monarchy were becoming unpopular in Britain at the start of the millennium. I think william and harry have been a big part of the growth in popularity. Like I said I'm not a monarchist but I do like william and Harry. William seems like the kind of bloke you have a chat with down tje2 pub. Probably about football

They've saved it no doubt. As has the longevity of the Queen which has given Charlie boy time to improve his image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

football forum
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


Sign up to remove this ad.


×
×
  • Create New...