Poll: Britain as a Republic?

[Splock]

Real politics aside, my only problem with having a republic is that without a queen, our entire country is represented by Gorodn Brown which doesn't really do us many favours (if any). So if your planning a revolution, my only request is that you at least hold it off until we have another general election please

 

[Agent Larkin]

If you do that the Unionists up north will be very confused. I say do it for a week just for a laugh.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

No I didn't. I said Britain murdered it's way to the top of a lot of other countries. And if we hadn't, those countries would have remained in the Stone Age. I then pointed out that Britain's current monarchy was invited by Parliment. Your attempt to twist my meaning has failed, sir.

Perhaps you should read up on your history a bit further back. The isles of great britain hasn't always been inhabited by your average tea-sipping straight-pinkies, but by barbarians who slaughtered people to claim the seat of power. The very murderers that created monarchy. Quite simply chiefs who bullied the general population into doing what it was told.

Oh, and you have just relinquished any rights to question my knowledge of history...

 

[Marcus Dubious]

Real politics aside, my only problem with having a republic is that without a queen, our entire country is represented by Gorodn Brown wish doesn't really do us many favours (if any). So if your planning a revolution, my only request is that you at least hold it off until we have another general election please

On that basis you must include Prince Philip and soon to be King Charles. They?re hardly the best representatives for Britain, not to mention Prince's Edward and Harry

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

NO, that?s not what was said. This was sometimes true in the past, there are few ruling monarchies in the world today and none of them got their power through military victories. They got them through hereditary.

Yes, but they inherited their power from the warmongering murderers, who fought equally pointless and bloody wars.

It's like owing all of your fortune and fame to that stack of nazi gold you inherited which consists of gold fillings from the victims of auschwitz, but you gloat and strut around like it was your birthtight, completely ignoring the fact that it isn't bloodmoney...

 

[Rolling Thunder]

No I didn't. I said Britain murdered it's way to the top of a lot of other countries. And if we hadn't, those countries would have remained in the Stone Age. I then pointed out that Britain's current monarchy was invited by Parliment. Your attempt to twist my meaning has failed, sir.

Perhaps you should read up on your history a bit further back. The isles of great britain hasn't always been inhabited by your average tea-sipping straight-pinkies, but by barbarians who slaughtered people to claim the seat of power. The very murderers that created monarchy. Quite simply chiefs who bullied the general population into doing what it was told.

Oh, and you have just relinquished any rights to question my knowledge of history...

No, I didn't. Watch me: Your example is also fallacious. We are not discussing previous monarchs, we are discussing current ones, and the current dynasty, as I pointed out, has not slaughtered anyone, and, indeed, can has great claim to legitimacy indeed, being, in essence, appointed by an elected body.

 

[Desert Tiger]

No I didn't. I said Britain murdered it's way to the top of a lot of other countries. And if we hadn't, those countries would have remained in the Stone Age. I then pointed out that Britain's current monarchy was invited by Parliment. Your attempt to twist my meaning has failed, sir.

Perhaps you should read up on your history a bit further back. The isles of great britain hasn't always been inhabited by your average tea-sipping straight-pinkies, but by barbarians who slaughtered people to claim the seat of power. The very murderers that created monarchy. Quite simply chiefs who bullied the general population into doing what it was told.

Oh, and you have just relinquished any rights to question my knowledge of history...

That always happens, because we are human.

Yeah, 'cept we were taught civilty and society by the Romans when they invaded Britain, bringing the knowledge of roads, aquaducts, sewage systems etc. If they hadn't invaded us, the modern world would be completely different.

 

[Boffc47]

YES lets get rid of the inbread unelected sponges

 

[Bretty]

The monarchy does infact have some significance - for one thing, we need it for tourism values, its one of the things most other countries think of as traditionally British. Also, we can't be arsed to overthrow our monarchy - too much paper work involved.

The french solved it without much paper work during their revolution. They just dragged the aristocracy out in the street and chopped their heads off.

Seems the french outsmarted the brits in that department. : )

The British Monarchy had less and less and less power since 1707 i think or 1717, it was something beetween 1700-1719, after that point parliament had alot more say in running the country than taxes, and taxes have been controlled by parliament since medieval times, So since the 1700s the political power was transfered from the monarchy too the Parliament, no blood spilt, no wars, just a slow and steady transfer of power, i believe the brits have outsmarted alot of other countrys in this area.

Someone may have said this already... but we had a civil war that transfered power from the regents to the parliament.

The Monarchy do a lot for us. Be it fundraising for our charities or international politics. If you think we should get rid of them then fair enough. But I doubt you have truly thought it through?

Not only do the Royal Family HAVE NO POWER they are there for us! The Queen for example spends a great deal of her day, every day, working on things for the Nation. Be it presenting medals to those willing to fight for our country to hosting political dinners for World leaders.

To the OP.... formulate your own opinions through research and understanding a subject, not just a 30 minute opinion from a lecturer.

There is a reason the Brits are still going. And it isnt our puddings!

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Im sure britain greatly suffers today because of the monarcy. *sarcasm*

Oh awesome!

You are actually, straight faced, telling me that britain doesn't have poor and downtrodden people who have just been suffering from some really bad luck in life, and who could be helped to lead better and more productive lives, but the fact that you have to have a Queen who wipes her ass with the same amount of money who could help these people, every day prevents any such aid from ever being given to them.

Look, clearly I stepped on a few toes here. But im sorry, I can't harbour any respect for people who actually consider keeping monarchy around to be a good thing. The resources spent on luxury for monarchs could be spent on a lot better pursuits. But I guess some people are just happy with being complacent worker ants who look up to stuffy monarchs who haven't lifted a finger their entire life to earn their livelyhood...

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

No, I didn't. Watch me: Your example is also fallacious. We are not discussing previous monarchs, we are discussing current ones, and the current dynasty, as I pointed out, has not slaughtered anyone, and, indeed, can has great claim to legitimacy indeed, being, in essence, appointed by an elected body.

It doesn't matter if it is a current dynasty or a previous one. The fact remains that the current dynasties are inheritors of a legacy based on bloodshed. You can try to argue against it all you like, but it doesn't change the facts.

Then there's my opinion (which is just as valid as anyone elses, because opinions are all like assholes due to the fact that everyones got one and they all stink) which considers monarchy having no right at all to claim any sort of power due to them being institutionalized because of their bloodthirsty and power hungry ancestors. Quite simply, all monarchs in the world should be booted out of their castles for the pretentious, oportunistic assholes they are and be forced to work for a living like the rest of us...

 

[Marcus Dubious]

No I didn't. I said Britain murdered it's way to the top of a lot of other countries. And if we hadn't, those countries would have remained in the Stone Age. I then pointed out that Britain's current monarchy was invited by Parliment. Your attempt to twist my meaning has failed, sir.

Perhaps you should read up on your history a bit further back. The isles of great britain hasn't always been inhabited by your average tea-sipping straight-pinkies, but by barbarians who slaughtered people to claim the seat of power. The very murderers that created monarchy. Quite simply chiefs who bullied the general population into doing what it was told.

Oh, and you have just relinquished any rights to question my knowledge of history...

No, I didn't. Watch me: Your example is also fallacious. We are not discussing previous monarchs, we are discussing current ones, and the current dynasty, as I pointed out, has not slaughtered anyone, and, indeed, can has great claim to legitimacy indeed, being, in essence, appointed by an elected body.

The arguments aren't fallacious.
Britain was ruled by many who called themselves king and ruled separate "kingdoms" in seperation from other factions, tribes, whatever you want to call them
Tese wars were just a part of the feudal birth pains of a monocratic Britain.

These individual kings were each in turn defeated by more powerful rulers and eventually one faction ruled England, These became the monarchy.
Many wars were fought and many monarchs overthrown each preplaced by another feudal ruler.
This pseudo internal stability lasted until Edward I (long shanks) finally defecated Scotland.

This united Britain under one ruler.
This didn't stop the wars or the overthrowing of power, it just made the prize bigger. therefore attracting more interest from abroad.

If you want to know what happened next then reading is a good idea.

 

[Wadders]

Yes, smartass. They then spent the next fifteen years fighting pointless, bloody and vicious wars and generally bringing misery to every corner of Europe until everyone else got back together and kicked their heads in.

Sort of the same way each end every monarch that has ever existed did in order to sieze power for themselves? : )

NO, that?s not what was said. This was sometimes true in the past, there are few ruling monarchies in the world today and none of them got their power through military victories. They got them through hereditary.

Meh, Cromwell tried to make us unto a Republic after he won the Civil War, and that went arse over tits. As soon as he died we just invited the monarchy back again...

I know that was like 450 years ago and circumstances were entirely different, but it sums up my stance on this issue. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

Besides, I like the Royals. They don't do any harm, they are ammusing (both intentionally and unintentionally) and Prince Charles is awesome. Ish.

Cromwell and the New model Army managed to break the absolute power of the monarchy forever,
Charles II regained the throne as it was the only way to avert civil war but his power was broken, never again could a monarch rule without consent of the people.

These were the first seeds that led to democracy in Britain.

I know. I've studied that era for about a year now

It was for that reason we have the powerless monarchy we have today. The king knew that to step out of line was to invite rebellion, and so Parliament continued to push the envelope as far as they could with regards to limiting the monarchy's power and advancing their own.

But I'm sure you know that already. What I'm saying is that the republic failed once already, and after that we gradually found the kind of government that suited us reasonably well. So there is no need to turn back time so to speak and try a republic again.

 

[Wadders]

pretty much have been a second (or third, depending on how you look at it) Civil War.

Or even actually fourth if you counted the fight between Cromwell and Charles II before Charles was reinstated as monarch, although Charles did use the Scottish as his army rather than the English.

Hmm yeah true, but I'd never considered it a Civil war as such, seeing as he was out of the country and using foreign (Scotland wasn't part of our Kingdom then) troops. But I guess you could stretch the term "Civil War" a little

Edit: Bollocks. Double post

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I suppose you have a point that some of the stuff the monarchy have, is a bit too much.
However, people suffer from politicians desiscions in parliament than what the queen does today.

Yeah, but then we come back to my argument of democracy. In a democracy, some people will have reasons to whine and ***** about something, but at least it's more fair due to tha fact that everyone is equal to having one vote and place it on the government officials they want to see lead the country.

In the monarchy, you have that, but you also have a "special" set of families, who don't do anything for a living. Yet still they are showered in tax payers money, simply because of the fact that they have a "special" surname. In all fairness, that money could at the very least be pissed away by the politicians who have been elected by the people, rather than the money just being taken away and arbitrarily given to someone with a "special surname", or at the very best, be used for something that actually benefits the people.

For instance, any castle is a pretty useful piece of real estate. Why not have a hospital or orphanage there? But no, instead you have ONE family and a bunch of servants to this family, taking up useful real estate, which of course doesn't benefit the people at all...

 

[Rassan]

People remember a monarch more than a politician.