Why don't the British make Britain a Republic?

Post Reply New Topic

A good fraction of us in Quebec (the francophones, mostly) find the idea of being under the rule of royalty quite preposterous (which we currently are, seeing as Canada is under the British dominion in a way) and would likely want to do away with such an outdated system (or for the more extreme solution: guillotine ).

Besides, how much does it costs you Brits to look after the needs of your royalty? Money that could be spent on more useful projects?

But like it's been said, not much I or we can do about, so we just jokingly comment on the British as long as this farce keeps going. :p

(That said, I did appreciate our previous governor-general of Canada, Michaelle Jean, who had the cajones to stand up to Harper. Sadly all we have now is a little nobody who is quite retreated from national affairs and concerns. -.- )

(also, -shakes fist at Rikers for living in Japan- I wanna go there ! D: )

You mean even more money that could be pissed up the wall like the government always does here? Hm, I think Liz and her family of cretins are quite deserving in that context.

The official reported cost is around £41m per year but I suspect that it's about three or four times that cost after other expenses like security and other expenditure.

Because, when a monarch makes the British people mad, this happens!



In fact, the people of Britain have considerable power over their monarch. They can even force the monarch to make a display of mourning for an annoying b***h she never particularly liked, even though she wouldn't (and quite frankly traditionally shouldn't) for her own blood kin. The British monarchs realized a long time ago that their authority over their people is a package deal. If they fail to live up to what is expected of them, they are punished for it. Severely and painfully.

Therefore, they are probably more democratic than most republics. Even with the authority to demand a new parliament, the monarchy would never get away with it without the people supporting it, even if the objectors were a passionate minority.

Last edited by WilliamWDelaney on 08 Jan 2012, 3:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Never thought of it that way.

Maintaining Royalty as a way of "sticking it to the man".
I tend to think of royalty as "the man".

But if you think of the EU as the oppressor I guess the royals would be a symbol of defiance.

But Britain is a republic in all but name anyway.
The PM and the House of Commons run the country, and they are both democratically elected. The House of Lords has virtually no power, and the Monarchy even less.

The Royals are maintained as a tourist draw, and they are a symbol that help holds the several nationalities of the UK together ( the guy has to become the 'Prince of Wales' before he gets to be "king of England").

So if they did away with the Royals the UK might both fall apart (into England, Wales,Scotland, and Ulster) and would be swalloed up by the big bad EU.

And the money they would loose from tourism would outstrip any money they would save in cutting off the Royals. And even that money probably wouldnt be saved because the taxpayer would still have to maintian all of those big historic palaces whether the royals lived in them or not.

The English are loathe to forgo the ancient idea that some people are better than others because of what inbred vagina they popped out of.

I don't know anyone who really thinks like that. Not these days, anyway.

I think people still think the lower classes are genetically inferior. It's true that deference to the aristocracy has waned but the wealthy are seen as basically superior people.

I don't know, maybe I've got a chip on my shoulder because I felt like untermensch when I got to unversity.

Well, there is a very simple reason why we keep the monarchy besides it being one of the better working points in our system of Government.

What would you replace it with?

An elected party politician as President? Divisive. Nobody likes politicians, why would you want more of them?

Given a choice, which would you prefer:-

1) President Blair
2) President Brown
3) President Cameron.
4) Her Majesty the Queen.

The Queen has been reigning for longer than the existing US president has been alive. Who do you think has a better understanding of international politics, and who do you think best represents their country to foreign leaders? She can maintain relationships with foreign leaders that transcend petty and divisive party politics and continue to do so for long after a politician has been voted from office. A politician would not be able to do that.

I suspect there is more support in Britain for abolishing parliament and the lying scheming politicians within it than there is for abolishing the monarchy. You can't vote out politicians, sadly. I think that's a fundamental flaw with our system.

Objectors to the monarchy frequently raise the cost to the taxpayer. They dislike mentioning that under the 1701 act of settlement the monarchy pays all of the income from it's lands etc (the crown estates) into the chancellor and is then paid a yearly grant by the Government which is the reason for the monarchy taking money from the government. How much do the crown estates pay in, I hear you ask? Well, the crown estates raise ~£200 million a year. Parliament gives the monarchy £41 million per year. The more mathematically astute may notice that this means that the monarchy actually subsidises the government.

And one last answer, our national anthem.

May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause,
to sing with one heart and voice,
God save the Queen!

The Irish have an elected politician - a party politician - as president but the main authority (or what's left of it after the EU has taken their pound of flesh) remains with the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) now.

I've met the sort of people you're on about and, yes, I saw them as toffee-faced vermin completely out of touch with reality and probably quite callous people.

Rich people per se aren't bad people at all though, not a bit of it. It's the entitled (and political) class that is the real enemy.

Oliver Cromwell.

Indeed. And...

There is a historical legacy. But also, I would say its a cultural tradition of obedience that has seen our monarchy and attached aristocracy, the land owners, really never going challenged or fearing the masses that inhabit the land. Puddingmouse was alluding to this in some respect as even people who sought out to wrong injustice the poor and impoverished in British society became contemptious of their unswearing loyalty and obedience to defend the very system that kept them down in the mud. The chartist movement in the 1840's was absolutely crushed. When child laws were introduced you had capitalists and bankers of the day screaming in anger at Parliament for interferring with the "free market" every right gained for the average joe in this country was squeezed out of the system. As Robert Tressell once put it

Basically, Britain is kinda like the Matrix in a self contained island

Wow, the voice of all British dudes has spoken.

What, really? Tradition has to be the most stupid excuse to keep anything. And Tequila's claim that "it works" are easily debunked by the 2011 events.

How the Britons govern themselves is their business, not mine. They will act as a body politic and chose the form of government that best suits most of them, however silly or not silly that form is.

ruveyn

Set of islands?