I voted yes myself, being the anglophile I am, loving the English culture and all. I think if they were to ditch monarchy they would in a way lose some of their history. And to hear "the president of Britain" would just sound wierd!
Well, the leader would probably be "prime minister," correct?
It doesn't seem like that title would change to president, in the off chance that would happen. And I don't see how they'd lose some of their history, it's still there. Perhaps you mean tradition? Because there are some beautiful traditions around the monarchy that would be unfortunate to end.
Monarchy in England doesn't have the power it used to. In many ways, it's more honorary than it once was and Parliment has more power than it used to. I went to a meeting of the House of Commons once when I visited. It only served to remind me that politicians are politicians are politicians, wherever you are in the world.
Personally, I couldn't care either way, as long as England is governed in a way that is fair and benificial to it's people. So I'm not in the yes or no camp.
The U.K. is technically a 'constitutional monarchy'...
With the monarch holding no real powers, being largely ceremonial, and hugely expensive. Time for the U.K. to move into the 21st century and ditch the monarchy - at least until the Pendragon returns! "Be good, be careful, have fun, don't get arrested!" ---Marcia Michelle Alexander Hamilton, 7 Nov 1955 - 19 Nov 2009
for instance, our royal wedding in Sweden last summer cost approx. 1 million euro. That's barely anything at all for the tax payers. On the other hand, paying for the enorumous security for the presidents throughout the world, particulary the US president cost billions to fund (I remember when Obama was to recieve the peace prize in Oslo and they closed off several blocks just for security measures. That's insane!). If UK ditched monarchy, so would many tourists. There are few monarchys left in the world as it is, I think.
Look up what it costs to keep the monarchy. If 1 million Euro is "barely anything at all" for the taxpayers I'll make this deal. Pay me 1 million Euro up-front and I'll not take one FARTHING more (not sure what Euro equivalent of 'cents' is so I'll use the old British term for a nickel equivalent) and work tirelessly FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE for Sweden or any other nation that will have me in whatever capacity they see fit. Far cheaper than royalty. U.K. tourism is about far more than the monarchy. There are now far more Scots living in the United States alone than live in Scotland. Same for the Irish. People want to see the land of their roots and the monarchy doesn't matter one whit. I deliberately AVOIDED the Tower of London and all that when I lived in the U.K. There are few monarchies because despots have discovered that military coups are far more effective than trying to claim divine right to rule (the basis of monarchies). It's not romantic at all of me, but seriously, the money is best spent on the people and not on an antiquated ceremonial head that does not serve a purpose useful enough to merit the enormous cost. "Be good, be careful, have fun, don't get arrested!" ---Marcia Michelle Alexander Hamilton, 7 Nov 1955 - 19 Nov 2009
Harry is in the military. William and Charles can be put into the foreign ministry as ambassadors, any of the others can find work except Elizabeth herself. Treat her as a retiree and if you want to afford her a few perks that's an option but I don't see any real reason to do so.
There is nothing extant on the professor's feelings toward monarchy that I'm aware of and M-e is full of monarchies solely because that was the prime form of government throughout antiquity (with Athens and Rome being notable exceptions).
I don't expect those who enjoy the romantic aspect of a monarchy to agree with me but I'm a pragmatist in this regard. "Be good, be careful, have fun, don't get arrested!" ---Marcia Michelle Alexander Hamilton, 7 Nov 1955 - 19 Nov 2009
Doesn't it depend on which type of Government the country runs? Britain runs a Parliamentary system of government right now, hence the reason for the British Prime Minister. I don't think Britain would change the type of government they currently run. When Canada officially left the Commonwealth, the Prime Minister's office remained, as it does today. I believe its the same in Australia? What's the matter, James? No glib remark? No pithy comeback?"
The Shire isn't a monarchy, is it? Do please correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't recall reading anything about a Hobbit king. Given, I haven't read all of Tolkien's works, just LotR, The Hobbit, and the Silmarilion.
The closest thing is the Thain of the Tooks. If you read carefully, the Thain is derived in the same way as the first kings were, before divine right crept in. But since the Thain makes no effort at all to consolidate any sort of power, nor appoint regents to the Farthings I'd say that the hobbits do not have a monarchy but rather a confederacy with local elders of villages making any decisions that need to be made and even then it's not a formal council so that suggests more of a 'cooperative anarchy'. "Be good, be careful, have fun, don't get arrested!" ---Marcia Michelle Alexander Hamilton, 7 Nov 1955 - 19 Nov 2009
The question was posed by a Swede and when I lived in Britain some 30 years ago people were questioning the continued relevance of the monarchy - Britons were. No one has any problem dissecting U.S. politics, why should the monarchy be exempt? "Be good, be careful, have fun, don't get arrested!" ---Marcia Michelle Alexander Hamilton, 7 Nov 1955 - 19 Nov 2009
maybe I shouldn't have an opinion. I enjoy the pomp and ceremony, but does it cost those taxpayers much to support all those royals? I was looking at the inside of Buck House on TV yesterday, and all I could think about was how opulent it all was when so many in the North of England (particularly) are out of work. I guess I am just a victim of all those "Royals behaving badly" stories of the last few years, and I've come to question the worth of all that. Not for the Queen, for example--she's beyond great. But unless they are largely self-sufficient (which I don't know--are they?) I'd probably say stop with Queen Elizabeth. I hope I do not insult my British TORnsibs, cause I really don't mean to--I'm just speaking as a totally clueless outside observer. Permanent address: Into the West
Must. Have. The Precious! Give us the LotR EE Blu-ray Ultimate Box Set!
The Queen and Prince Phillip, Princes William and Harry, Prince Charles and his wife, Princess Anne and her family, Prince Andrew? I'm asking, because, as I said--I'm clueless. Permanent address: Into the West
Must. Have. The Precious! Give us the LotR EE Blu-ray Ultimate Box Set!
As an American, I'm very glad we don't have a monarchy of our own, but I do enjoy watching the British pagentry. If they're willing to put up with it, I'm glad I get to watch. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "For DORA BAGGINS in memory of a LONG correspondence, with love from Bilbo; on a large wastebasket. Dora was Drogo's sister, and the eldest surviving female relative of Bilbo and Frodo; she was ninety-nine, and had written reams of good advice for more than half a century." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "A Chance Meeting at Rivendell" and other stories
leleni at hotmail dot com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We've been trying to host the Commonwealth games actually, and I can't remember if Ontario has been given the right to host it very soon. But we in Canada are not officially part of the Commonwealth as we once were. We aren't officially at war when Britain declares war any more. The Queen appears on our money etc, however, the point I was trying to make was that when Canada officially left Britain, we retained our Prime Minister as head of our government. Canada didn't become a Presidential Republic. Canada remained a Parliamentary government. Officially the Governor General is the Queen's representative in the country but is only a 'figurehead' nowadays. That position is mostly a formality. What's the matter, James? No glib remark? No pithy comeback?"
Certainly here in Canada we have no problem dissing American politics! But the monarchy is pretty far removed from politics in this modern day. I think it was the word "should" that got my back up a little. No offence meant. "There are some things that it is better to begin than to refuse, even though the end may be dark."
Taxes pay for the royals so it's quite political. Taxes in a country with a very high tax burden to begin with and many needs more pressing than a once-in-30 years pageant, in my opinion. "Be good, be careful, have fun, don't get arrested!" ---Marcia Michelle Alexander Hamilton, 7 Nov 1955 - 19 Nov 2009
According to those numbers it's "only" 94 cents per Brit (right around 60 pence at today's exchange rate) but with a population of just a shade under 62 million that's still an awful lot of money, about $58.28 million per year.
All that said, 72% support the monarchy while 80-year-old Queen Elizabeth II is ruling. The numbers drop precipitiously once Charles ascends the throne and even fewer want Camilla as queen. William is immensely popular but again, is it worth it? For now the British say 'yes' and that's enough for all of us, but the future seems uncertain. "Be good, be careful, have fun, don't get arrested!" ---Marcia Michelle Alexander Hamilton, 7 Nov 1955 - 19 Nov 2009
I don't think this poll was any odd because as Gandy said, US politics is discussed worldwide, and people are comparing with every country and has done so for ages. Secondly, I am from Sweden which means this question is relevant also for me, since we're a monarchy too.
Depending upon the kind of charity work the royal in question does, the tax burden may actually even out. Look at all the work Princess Diana did to bring attention to many important social and health issues in her short lifetime. Many of those organizations she supported got free advertising through her and her standing as a member of the royal family, which means that in a way, there's a trickle down effect of her work to those who were in need. It seems Prince William takes after his mother in many ways, when it comes to being active in social issues.
I suppose it really depends upon how great a sense of social responsibility any member of the royal family has, but it's not like people haven't benefitted from the work of some in the royal family.
That said, I'm not sure either way, whether I think Great Britain should keep or remove the royals. While they don't serve the political function they used to, which makes them somewhat obsolete, they can serve a socio-political function, which can be very valuable.
The mayor gets no salary from the position at all as it's purely ceremonial as Tolkien states. What tax burden there is in the Shire is due the landowners but as they pay no tax to the Thain the burden is quite light. At a guess I'd say no higher than 5% or so. "Be good, be careful, have fun, don't get arrested!" ---Marcia Michelle Alexander Hamilton, 7 Nov 1955 - 19 Nov 2009
the post, (which the mayor is head of as well) is volunteer. He does not specifically state about the bounders and shirriffs though I expect that also to be part of the tax burden but still a VERY small cost as there never were many shirriffs to begin with. And they may have been volunteer as well since they did far less than the Post! I expect however it shook out that the taxes were quite low as the services were very low and it did not seem that even the wealthiest taxed very highly as the opulance was relatively small. "Be good, be careful, have fun, don't get arrested!" ---Marcia Michelle Alexander Hamilton, 7 Nov 1955 - 19 Nov 2009
"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?" -Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915
I have never been in a country with Monarchy, so thatīs why I didnīt vote, I canīt vote about something I donīt know, but really, I have seen critics and canīt find reasons for hating Monarchy especially these days.
As a symbol, I truly appreciate it. "Dear friend good bye, no tears in my eyes. So sad it ends, as it began"