Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Off Topic: The Pollantir:
Should UK stay as a monarchy?
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
Poll: Should UK stay as a monarchy?
Yes
No
View Results (26 votes)
 

macfalk
Valinor


Apr 29 2011, 1:12pm

Post #1 of 46 (533 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 (268 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 (248 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 (259 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 (292 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! Tongue


macfalk
Valinor


Apr 29 2011, 4:26pm

Post #6 of 46 (263 views)
Shortcut
To be fair... [In reply to] Can't Post

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 (279 views)
Shortcut
I am being fair... [In reply to] Can't Post

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 (247 views)
Shortcut
While I get your points [In reply to] Can't Post

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 Tongue


(This post was edited by macfalk on Apr 29 2011, 4:49pm)


RosieLass
Valinor


Apr 29 2011, 4:55pm

Post #9 of 46 (289 views)
Shortcut
Another point to consider. [In reply to] Can't Post

How much tourism is attracted specifically because of the monarchy?


GAndyalf
Valinor

Apr 29 2011, 5:43pm

Post #10 of 46 (302 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 (253 views)
Shortcut
It's my opinion [In reply to] Can't Post

if you're not British, it's nobody else's business.


Donry
Tol Eressea


Apr 29 2011, 10:16pm

Post #12 of 46 (251 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 (224 views)
Shortcut
I was under the impression... [In reply to] Can't Post

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 (230 views)
Shortcut
Good catch, actually... [In reply to] Can't Post

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 (248 views)
Shortcut
I think that a tad harsh... [In reply to] Can't Post

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 (262 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 (273 views)
Shortcut
As a non-Brit... [In reply to] Can't Post

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 (239 views)
Shortcut
I read somewhere [In reply to] Can't Post

(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 (211 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 (305 views)
Shortcut
Is that for all of them? [In reply to] Can't Post

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 (204 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 (189 views)
Shortcut
Yes... [In reply to] Can't Post

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 (221 views)
Shortcut
In one sense you are right [In reply to] Can't Post

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 (201 views)
Shortcut
Disagree respectfully... [In reply to] Can't Post

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 (210 views)
Shortcut
Support for the monarchy... [In reply to] Can't Post

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.

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.