|
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net? Consider a donation!
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
macfalk
Valinor
Apr 29 2011, 1:12pm
Post #1 of 46
(535 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Should UK stay as a monarchy?
|
Can't Post
|
|
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!
|
|
|
taekotemple
Grey Havens
Apr 29 2011, 3:16pm
Post #2 of 46
(270 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well, the leader would probably be "prime minister," correct?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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.
|
|
|
macfalk
Valinor
Apr 29 2011, 3:39pm
Post #3 of 46
(250 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm pretty sure it would be "president"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Though I'm not 100%. For instance, France ditched monarchy and their leader is now called the president of France.
|
|
|
RosieLass
Valinor
Apr 29 2011, 4:05pm
Post #4 of 46
(261 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It's pretty much a monarchy in name only now, isn't it?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I mean, the Queen has some ceremonial functions, and she has the final "word" on some government appointments, but I daresay she takes the guidance of the government advisers for that anyway.
Anyway, I don't suppose the monarchy is doing anyone any harm, so why not let it be?
|
|
|
GAndyalf
Valinor
Apr 29 2011, 4:15pm
Post #5 of 46
(294 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The U.K. is technically a 'constitutional monarchy'...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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! 
|
|
|
macfalk
Valinor
Apr 29 2011, 4:26pm
Post #6 of 46
(265 views)
Shortcut
|
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.
|
|
|
GAndyalf
Valinor
Apr 29 2011, 4:35pm
Post #7 of 46
(281 views)
Shortcut
|
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.
|
|
|
macfalk
Valinor
Apr 29 2011, 4:47pm
Post #8 of 46
(249 views)
Shortcut
|
While I don't agree with all that you made a couple of good points. However, if the monarchy is to be ditched, what about all the royals? Are they to be thrown out on the street?
Wasn't also JRR Tolkien a supporter of monarchy?
edit: And remember, as good as all realms in Middle-earth is a monarchy
(This post was edited by macfalk on Apr 29 2011, 4:49pm)
|
|
|
RosieLass
Valinor
Apr 29 2011, 4:55pm
Post #9 of 46
(291 views)
Shortcut
|
How much tourism is attracted specifically because of the monarchy?
|
|
|
GAndyalf
Valinor
Apr 29 2011, 5:43pm
Post #10 of 46
(304 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What happens to the surviving royals?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Elberbeth
Tol Eressea
Apr 29 2011, 7:57pm
Post #11 of 46
(255 views)
Shortcut
|
if you're not British, it's nobody else's business.
|
|
|
Donry
Tol Eressea
Apr 29 2011, 10:16pm
Post #12 of 46
(253 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes...and as far as a President goes...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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?
|
|
|
taekotemple
Grey Havens
Apr 30 2011, 12:32am
Post #13 of 46
(226 views)
Shortcut
|
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.
|
|
|
GAndyalf
Valinor
Apr 30 2011, 12:59am
Post #14 of 46
(232 views)
Shortcut
|
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'.
|
|
|
GAndyalf
Valinor
Apr 30 2011, 1:01am
Post #15 of 46
(250 views)
Shortcut
|
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?
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Apr 30 2011, 1:55am
Post #16 of 46
(264 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think history and tradition are very important.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
They serve to bind the society and give a sense of belonging.
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
Apr 30 2011, 3:21am
Post #17 of 46
(275 views)
Shortcut
|
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.
|
|
|
RosieLass
Valinor
Apr 30 2011, 5:53am
Post #18 of 46
(241 views)
Shortcut
|
(Whether it was a reliable source or not, I don't know)
But I read that the amount that each taxpayer pays to support the monarchy is about a pound a year?
|
|
|
titanium_hobbit
Rohan
Apr 30 2011, 6:53am
Post #19 of 46
(213 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Queen is still Queen of Canada
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Canada still goes to the Commonwealth Games. I don't think they've left the Commonwealth.
Like Australia, they still have the Queen as head of state (represented by the Governor General) but aren't under the parliament of the UK, which they were in the past.
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
Apr 30 2011, 7:25am
Post #20 of 46
(307 views)
Shortcut
|
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.
|
|
|
Aunt Dora Baggins
Immortal
Apr 30 2011, 2:06pm
Post #21 of 46
(206 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I voted yes, but of course it's not up to me.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Donry
Tol Eressea
Apr 30 2011, 2:16pm
Post #22 of 46
(191 views)
Shortcut
|
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.
|
|
|
Elberbeth
Tol Eressea
Apr 30 2011, 3:52pm
Post #23 of 46
(223 views)
Shortcut
|
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.
|
|
|
GAndyalf
Valinor
Apr 30 2011, 4:41pm
Post #24 of 46
(203 views)
Shortcut
|
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.
|
|
|
GAndyalf
Valinor
Apr 30 2011, 4:54pm
Post #25 of 46
(212 views)
Shortcut
|
Appears to be based strongly upon Elizabeth II:
http://theinternetforum.co.uk/node/921
And here's the numbers to suppor the monarchy:
http://theview.abc.go.com/...onarchy-be-abolished
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.
|
|
|
|
|
1
