The Monarchy

[Bodicoteblue]

I'm opposed to the concept of a monarchy for all the obvious reasons- undemocratic , accident of birth ,archaic system etc. but what I would say in its favour is that , for many people in Britain ,it provides a sense of identity.
The biggest and most powerful republics have successfully replaced their monarchs ( or in the USAs case,our monarch)
with a sense of "nationhood" and democracy, with the state itself becoming its own identity, but this was done long before these nations started to absorb other cultures and religions and had established these ideals which were adopted by all arrivals.
This is what would worry me. In a modern state attempting to become a republic , it would be vital that the vast majority of the population agreed on the kind of nation it would be, and as we see in France at the moment , attempting to ban the hijab, or indeed any form of religious manifestation , leads to convulsions in society with many feeling alienated by an almost state enforced "egalite" which ironically is perceived by some of its own citizens as divisive.
The replacement for an apolitical monarchy would have to contain a political element, and I am afraid , especially after reading some of the sneering, antagonistic aggressiveness in some of the political threads, that some sections of british society , defined by ethnicity or cultue or just plain old politics are not mature enough to participate in what would be a democratic revolution , and would neither accept the subsequent form that the state would take, nor the identities of would-be presidents.
Like it or not , and I say again I am not in favour of it, I feel that the system we have is probably the one best suited to Britain at the moment, in terms of its unifying qualities and relative political neutrality.
It ain't that broke - it doesn't really need too much fixing.

 

[johnnytapia]

Read 'Royalty' by Jeremy Paxman, it's a great book about why people still put up with monarchies. In the growing absence of religion, people do find comfort in the 'higher being' status of a monarch. It makes us feel comfortable really.

The other choice is elected presidents, who wil do what they can to serve their own purposes. at least with monarchies they do what's right for the country, not always them. Cromwell overthrew the monarchy and replaced it with himself, and then wanted his son to take over....is that not a monarchy?!

For 60p a person, it's not that bad a service.

That might be the feeling at the moment but as mankind continues to change do you see it staying? I don't.

I think you make a strong point. Society, and the attitudes within it, have been subject to such change in the last generation, nothing is sacred.

It'll take at least a generation though. You'll probably sees attitudes discernibly shift when the Queen dies and Charles become King. There's no way he'll be nearly as well regarded as his mother.

Never underestimate the crashingly low intellect of our populace: a country that has The Sun as its most popular paper; a country where over a million people will call for the reinstatement of Jeremy Clarkson; a country where X factor is the zenith of morning, noon and evening debate.

We are a nation of idiots. Charles et al are safe for much longer than you envisage. Much longer.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

I'm opposed to the concept of a monarchy for all the obvious reasons- undemocratic , accident of birth ,archaic system etc. but what I would say in its favour is that , for many people in Britain ,it provides a sense of identity.
The biggest and most powerful republics have successfully replaced their monarchs ( or in the USAs case,our monarch)
with a sense of "nationhood" and democracy, with the state itself becoming its own identity, but this was done long before these nations started to absorb other cultures and religions and had established these ideals which were adopted by all arrivals.
This is what would worry me. In a modern state attempting to become a republic , it would be vital that the vast majority of the population agreed on the kind of nation it would be, and as we see in France at the moment , attempting to ban the hijab, or indeed any form of religious manifestation , leads to convulsions in society with many feeling alienated by an almost state enforced "egalite" which ironically is perceived by some of its own citizens as divisive.
The replacement for an apolitical monarchy would have to contain a political element, and I am afraid , especially after reading some of the sneering, antagonistic aggressiveness in some of the political threads, that some sections of british society , defined by ethnicity or cultue or just plain old politics are not mature enough to participate in what would be a democratic revolution , and would neither accept the subsequent form that the state would take, nor the identities of would-be presidents.
Like it or not , and I say again I am not in favour of it, I feel that the system we have is probably the one best suited to Britain at the moment, in terms of its unifying qualities and relative political neutrality.
It ain't that broke - it doesn't really need too much fixing.

Some very good points here.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

That might be the feeling at the moment but as mankind continues to change do you see it staying? I don't.

I think you make a strong point. Society, and the attitudes within it, have been subject to such change in the last generation, nothing is sacred.

It'll take at least a generation though. You'll probably sees attitudes discernibly shift when the Queen dies and Charles become King. There's no way he'll be nearly as well regarded as his mother.

Never underestimate the crashingly low intellect of our populace: a country that has The Sun as its most popular paper; a country where over a million people will call for the reinstatement of Jeremy Clarkson; a country where X factor is the zenith of morning, noon and evening debate.

We are a nation of idiots. Charles et al are safe for much longer than you envisage. Much longer.

On the scale of idiocy, seeing as every single one of us is, how far up the ladder are you?
Anything between 1-100 will do as a crude marker.

 

[Damocles]

That might be the feeling at the moment but as mankind continues to change do you see it staying? I don't.

I think you make a strong point. Society, and the attitudes within it, have been subject to such change in the last generation, nothing is sacred.

It'll take at least a generation though. You'll probably sees attitudes discernibly shift when the Queen dies and Charles become King. There's no way he'll be nearly as well regarded as his mother.

Never underestimate the crashingly low intellect of our populace: a country that has The Sun as its most popular paper; a country where over a million people will call for the reinstatement of Jeremy Clarkson; a country where X factor is the zenith of morning, noon and evening debate.

We are a nation of idiots. Charles et al are safe for much longer than you envisage. Much longer.

We're one of the most educated countries in the world and our cultural output is constantly incredible. Around 45% of the population holds a post-secondary qualification of some sort, and we're only getting smarter with 40% of 18-40 year olds achieving a greater level of study than their parents. In terms of our education system, we're considered to have the second best in Europe and the sixth best worldwide.

I presume you don't consider yourself in this bracket of idiots. Funnily, ranking people's intelligence by the papers they read or the TV shows they watch shows a lack of critical analysis often found in dumb people.

 

[johnnytapia]

I think you make a strong point. Society, and the attitudes within it, have been subject to such change in the last generation, nothing is sacred.

It'll take at least a generation though. You'll probably sees attitudes discernibly shift when the Queen dies and Charles become King. There's no way he'll be nearly as well regarded as his mother.

Never underestimate the crashingly low intellect of our populace: a country that has The Sun as its most popular paper; a country where over a million people will call for the reinstatement of Jeremy Clarkson; a country where X factor is the zenith of morning, noon and evening debate.

We are a nation of idiots. Charles et al are safe for much longer than you envisage. Much longer.

We're one of the most educated countries in the world and our cultural output is constantly incredible. Around 45% of the population holds a post-secondary qualification of some sort, and we're only getting smarter with 40% of 18-40 year olds achieving a greater level of study than their parents. In terms of our education system, we're considered to have the second best in Europe and the sixth best worldwide.

I presume you don't consider yourself in this bracket of idiots. Funnily, ranking people's intelligence by the papers they read or the TV shows they watch shows a lack of critical analysis often found in dumb people.

Our cultural output is indeed outstanding - especially when placed in the context of the truly uninformed, disinterested nation we’ve become. I think you conflate smarter with having qualifications. Do you genuinely believe we’re turning out more brilliant scientists, engineers, pioneers, biologists, chemists, mathematicians than say, 20/30/50 years ago? As for the second best education system in Europe - that is arrant nonsense. Scandanavia alone walks head and shoulders above us. And no, I don’t need PISA test results to show that.

We’re a nation that loves the utter inane drivel served up by tabloids, that’s led, mouths agape, into texting who should come out of the fucking jungle. And it’s the reason we’ll have a monarchy until The Sun decides it’s time for its “readers” to be told otherwise.

 

[kas_tippler]

Surely the justification for the Monarchy has to be more than- better them than Blair or Cowell, plus they bring in a load of money?

I can't think of any, can you?

No In my view there is no justification for monarchy in this day and age.
Usually though it's supporters like to justify it on historical,spiritual,religious grounds etc rather pure hard cash and no Blair/Cowell or whoever as president.

A sovereign country needs a head of state, having a monarch which contributes to the economy by bringing tourism beats a elected head of state any day. Head's of states in this country have virtually no power so there's no point having an elected one. I'd stop reading Socialist Worker if I we're you

 

[whp.blue]

The Monarchy lost what little credibility they had when they Knighted the GPC

I'd Vote them out in a heartbeat.

 

[Ban-jani]

The whole idea of some people having a quality called royalty which the rest of us don't is absurd.

This.

It will never change though. The royal family won't resign as such, and no politician is going to have the balls to do anything about it, as small-minded, celebrity obsessing, moronic fuckwits love the royals too much.

I'd take a leaf out of the Frenchies book.

 

[TCIB]

That sense of identity i see is in the nice villages and ancient back roads that wind around.
Stuff like that, the quirks and age old cobbled roads.

I d not see any identity in an outmoded and quite frankly crass and crude symbolic gesture.
No amount of summer garden parties in the house grounds will change that for me.