We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Close

Should britain abolish the Monarchy?

generaloneillgeneraloneill

Helping my daughter to complete a critical essay, kind of looking technical accuracy/expression, some evidence rather than facts. Looking for a little help as to how this should be drafted. Also need arguments for and against britain abolishing the monarchy.

All Comments (86)

Jump to unread Post a Comment
    nemesiz
    They do a good job possessing vast estate though, they're greedy runts.


    Alll land owned by the Monarch, known as the Crown Estate provides countless jobs and opportunities but more importantly all profits (£230 million) and tax revenues (an estimated 2 billion pounds yearly) are signed over to the government.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

    Edited By: nemesiz on Feb 19, 2012 21:41
    Redking
    brett1985
    Republicanism is completely redundant. The monarchy are figureheads and don't exercise power except on the instruction of the democratically elected government. They are - in general- well regarded as representatives of Britain and the monarchy - for better or worse- leaves behind a great history of many 100s of years.

    For the purposes of an essay I would put very little emphasis on a republican perspective. It is an ideal shared by few and would achieve very little.


    What a load of rubbish. It is this lack of critical thinking that the essay is trying to tackle.

    Filth is spot on with this one. The royals are unaccountable, non-transparent and unelected, who possess constitutional powers as well as being the head of church of the nation's religion. This ancient establishment runs contrary to everything that modern diplomacy stands for.
    brett1985
    Redking
    brett1985
    Republicanism is completely redundant. The monarchy are figureheads and don't exercise power except on the instruction of the democratically elected government. They are - in general- well regarded as representatives of Britain and the monarchy - for better or worse- leaves behind a great history of many 100s of years.

    For the purposes of an essay I would put very little emphasis on a republican perspective. It is an ideal shared by few and would achieve very little.


    What a load of rubbish. It is this lack of critical thinking that the essay is trying to tackle.

    Filth is spot on with this one. The royals are unaccountable, non-transparent and unelected, who possess constitutional powers as well as being the head of church of the nation's religion. This ancient establishment runs contrary to everything that modern diplomacy stands for.


    Interesting that you would suggest my thinking isn't critical. It is critical except it still leads me to my conclusion.

    My post was in response to the notion that just because you have to write an essay, just because you need to provide a critique- does not mean that you have to conclude that the Monarchy is a waste of space. Nor does it require that we over indulge a republican perspective which holds very little weight.

    Unaccountable with regards to?
    Non-transparent with regards to?
    Unelected..why is this significant?Constitutional powers under the Royal Prerogative used under the direction of the democratically elected government (read my post next time).
    Head of the church - is this meant to be an issue or what?
    What has this got to do with diplomacy?

    The fact of the matter is the Monarchy is a huge tourist draw which facinates the outside world. Minor criticisms aside it would be absolutely foolish to want rid of them.

    Edited By: brett1985 on Feb 20, 2012 06:02
    FilthAndFurry
    brett1985
    Redking
    brett1985
    Republicanism is completely redundant. The monarchy are figureheads and don't exercise power except on the instruction of the democratically elected government. They are - in general- well regarded as representatives of Britain and the monarchy - for better or worse- leaves behind a great history of many 100s of years.

    For the purposes of an essay I would put very little emphasis on a republican perspective. It is an ideal shared by few and would achieve very little.


    What a load of rubbish. It is this lack of critical thinking that the essay is trying to tackle.

    Filth is spot on with this one. The royals are unaccountable, non-transparent and unelected, who possess constitutional powers as well as being the head of church of the nation's religion. This ancient establishment runs contrary to everything that modern diplomacy stands for.


    Interesting that you would suggest my thinking isn't critical. It is critical except it still leads me to my conclusion.

    My post was in response to the notion that just because you have to write an essay, just because you need to provide a critique- does not mean that you have to conclude that the Monarchy is a waste of space. Nor does it require that we over indulge a republican perspective which holds very little weight.

    Unaccountable with regards to?
    Non-transparent with regards to?
    Unelected..why is this significant?Constitutional powers under the Royal Prerogative used under the direction of the democratically elected government (read my post next time).
    Head of the church - is this meant to be an issue or what?
    What has this got to do with diplomacy?

    The fact of the matter is the Monarchy is a huge tourist draw which facinates the outside world. Minor criticisms aside it would be absolutely foolish to want rid of them.


    I'm not the staunch republican I once was, but I still have issues with it. The tourism thing is overplayed in my opinion. Britain is a remarkable country and has an amazing history. It is a cultural hub and a mecca for people the world over - I put very little of that down to the current Royal family. People could still visit the same places even without a Royal family, much as they still do in France.

    But I just have issues reconciling a Royal family with the notion of us being a democracy, but also a meritocracy. Now you may not believe in such a thing and that's your right. But personally I don't see how anyone can justify power being passed down through bloodlines. It doesn't sit well with me, because I believe that anyone should be able to lift themselves up and attain power and that no-one should just be given it. I know some people find comfort in the stability of power being passed from one white person to another one, but I believe that a kid should be told he can be anything he wants to be, even attaining the highest seat of power.

    And just to answer one of your points - yes being head of the church does cause issues as it gives greater legitimacy to the CoE and actually guarantees that 26 Lords in the HoL are CoE Bishops. That is troubling to me as a person who believes that there should be separation between Church and State, but then people like me have always kicked up fusses about these types of things, be they women's rights, blacks' rights and now gay rights. Who knows, maybe we're wrong and you're right.
    brett1985
    I'm an Irish Nationalist who would hope for N. Ireland to be part of a Republic one day but I don't need the Monarchy to be abolished for that to happen.

    Yes you could seperate the historical pull of the Monarchy vs the extent to which people are lured by the current Royals. Though I think a lack of current figureheads might dilute the tourist interest over time.

    The Power at the Queen's Disposal is limited and constrained in most areas by the Consititution, Law, Principle, Protocol, Convention and Precedent. In the end the Queen does have ultimate Power in some key areas like to Appoint The Prime Minister. I'm not sure there will ever be an opportunity for the Queen to go against the Consistiution and act unilaterally without the immediate downfall of the monarchy.

    I personally don't buy into a separation of church and state but I can see that from a secularist viewpoint what the Queen does is partly a religious function. I'm not interested in a discussion of secularism here but I do agree that for what its worth the Queen adds legitimacy to the COE cause which isn't a plus point if you are a secularist.



    Edited By: brett1985 on Feb 20, 2012 12:33
    Redking
    brett1985
    Redking
    brett1985
    Republicanism is completely redundant. The monarchy are figureheads and don't exercise power except on the instruction of the democratically elected government. They are - in general- well regarded as representatives of Britain and the monarchy - for better or worse- leaves behind a great history of many 100s of years.

    For the purposes of an essay I would put very little emphasis on a republican perspective. It is an ideal shared by few and would achieve very little.


    What a load of rubbish. It is this lack of critical thinking that the essay is trying to tackle.

    Filth is spot on with this one. The royals are unaccountable, non-transparent and unelected, who possess constitutional powers as well as being the head of church of the nation's religion. This ancient establishment runs contrary to everything that modern diplomacy stands for.


    Interesting that you would suggest my thinking isn't critical. It is critical except it still leads me to my conclusion.

    My post was in response to the notion that just because you have to write an essay, just because you need to provide a critique- does not mean that you have to conclude that the Monarchy is a waste of space. Nor does it require that we over indulge a republican perspective which holds very little weight.

    Unaccountable with regards to?
    Non-transparent with regards to?
    Unelected..why is this significant?Constitutional powers under the Royal Prerogative used under the direction of the democratically elected government (read my post next time).
    Head of the church - is this meant to be an issue or what?
    What has this got to do with diplomacy?

    The fact of the matter is the Monarchy is a huge tourist draw which facinates the outside world. Minor criticisms aside it would be absolutely foolish to want rid of them.


    Total failure to grasp all the issues at hand results in any critical opinion provided being flawed no matter what the outcome. And I did read your post, but you fail to recognise the distinction between a government being elected and the royal family acting under their direction through the royal prerogative which is an important one

    Edited By: Redking on Feb 20, 2012 18:10

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

I Approve
Your Comments On This Post
Comment Preview
Close

PRIVATE MESSAGE

Close
Sorry, you can’t currently send PMs. Once you’re a more active member of the forum, the PM service will be unlocked for you.
Welcome to HUKD!
Close
Join the Community