Monarchy or Republic

[Dr. Croccer]

Republics tend to be more stable in the long run. Constitutional monarchies are basically republics with an outside institution that creates a sort of ceremonial check on their power..

Not really, it's more the other way around: Modern day republics are basically parliamentary systems which lack monarchs.

[Astaroth]

To get rid of the British/Canadian/Australian/NZ etc monarchy would be to place the crown on a politicians head. I'd rather my head of state was a ceremonial monarch than a politician.

Tbh I think having a head of state is expensive and extremely pointless nowadays. E.g. our (German) head of state costs us lots of money every year (heck, all of them -- even former ones -- get like 200,000 € per year until their death).

Treaties can just as well be signed by the head of govt or a secretary and I'm not willing to pay taxes for someone to hold even more pointless fancy speeches.

[Denny Crane!]

Do you mean crown estate is government property and monarchy have no right for crown estate or if the monarchy literally disappeared, all of the monarchy member "vanish" suddenly then government will inherit the crown estate?

Yep.

it is no longer the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him/her, nor do the revenues from it belong to the monarch personally (as each monarch, upon accession, surrenders the surplus revenues in return for an annual grant). It is managed by an independent organisation headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners. The surplus revenue from the Estate is paid each year to HM Treasury. The Crown Estate is formally accountable to Parliament, to which it makes an annual report


.............

The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers.

To explain further, one analogy that could be used is that The Crown Estate is the property equivalent of the Crown jewels - part of the national heritage and held by Her Majesty The Queen as sovereign, but not available for her private use.

M'boy, you have No, No, idea how popular William and Harold are here, but look, the Monarch, OWNS the country, because they conquered it by force, they retain the right to own the crown estates, unless you murder them, or exile them, it's their money and their land, and talking to the few people I've spoken to, it's their armed forces to.

You already had the part about conquering poopoo'd so I won't bother but it shows a relatively big lack of knowledge about British history which I find disappointing. The Monarch does not own the country even slightly, you obviously don't understand the nature of the crown estate either. They are a functional symbolic head of state that represents the country, they do not own the armed forces.

William and Harold are popular in the celebrity press, and how fickle is that kind of popularity? Very.

They bring the tourist money, which otherwise would go to France, or Spain, Americans come here for only two reasons, they don't have to learn the language, and because our castle are the Queens castles, and I'm quite sure the loss of ether of those reasons would mean they would go somewhere hot, or go somewhere that's more fun, and wacky.

Tourist money is for the history and the places, not for the royalty which aren't seen by the tourists anyway. A rather glaring omission people always make when discussing royalty being a tourist attraction. They aren't sitting on show behind a glass case.

Our love for them, whither it is justified or not, inspires our people and gives us hope, it gives us a focus point, and it gives us an example, and they reflect us, they divorce, and party, and hurt.

Soppy nonsense that has no basis in reality but probably sounds really nice if you are that way inclined.

Monarchy historically is nothing more than a Mafia, which is why it has an army, they are monarchs only because they are successful in beating the , out of the opposition, and if the monarchy falls, it will be for one reason, because it has failed as an institution, but it will never fail, and if it does, it will be restored, or replaced. Every country has a monarchy in that respect, sometimes several, but often, you just don't know who they are.

Don't forget, the monarchy gave us a parliament twice, Once in 1066, when William the Conqueror kept the Common Law, and in 1688 when we were given the present parliament. The only king who has tried to take away those rights has fallen.

The U.K. IS a republic, it's just a Royal Republic, and one day, I am sure, we will trust our monarchs, with REAL power, and be able to elect them to parliament, and I'm sure they will do a damn good job.

Why?

Because their heads depend on it.

Wow...

When I said that they conquered it, I meant in general, but even so, in the beginning someone conquered them, and after the restoration they were conquered by the Oranges who were succeeded by the Hanoverians, and so on, the fact they took over without force is a happy coincidence.

So in other words they didn't conquer it.

To those arguing that the monarch is and will not be completely unbiased, of course not, but he/she will, or at least should, have low levels of bias because they have been raised to fill the position of unbiased arbitrator over parliament,

Which we know clearly doesn't work thanks to Charles and his political lobbying.

have not been directly involved in any political party's which prevents bias from such influences, do not owe their allegiance to any party for putting them in their position and do not have to worry about loosing support from their party or any other supporters (banks, large corporations etc that provide finances for example) to win the next election. This is as opposed to a person who has been immersed directly has a member in a party and its political culture and ideologies, possible raised as a supporter of said party, directly owes their position and power to their party and requires the support of their party and other entities to win the next election to maintain that power. These are not the influences you want to have on a referee, would you propose appointing a player from English team to referee a game of England vs Scotland? Yes of course the monarch will still have some biases and favorites because this is simply unavoidable and no human can be considered completely unbiased, but in a monarch these biases can be minimized, as opposed to a politician in which they are maximized.

Which is completely irrelevant in a symbolic head of state anyway that Joe Bloggs could fill.

The Crown Estate is all of the land owned by the crown (worth £7 billion) - this also includes most of the forests, huge areas of agricultural land 55% of the UK's foreshore, territorial seabed, all of the Salmon fisheries in Scotland, rights to mineral mining and huge amounts of urban and retail land. Currently this land managed by the government with the revenues going to government and in return the monarch gets a salary from the government. If the monarchy is abolished then all of these lands and rights still legally belong to the head of the House of Windsor and then the government would lose all of the income from the crown estates. The status quo means that the treasury (and tax payer) benefits from these revenues.

See above, the head of Windsor has zero right to them. Hell go to the crown estate website and read it for yourself.

Tbh I think having a head of state is expensive and extremely pointless nowadays. E.g. our (German) head of state costs us lots of money every year (heck, all of them -- even former ones -- get like 200,000 € per year until their death).

Treaties can just as well be signed by the head of govt or a secretary and I'm not willing to pay taxes for someone to hold even more pointless fancy speeches.

Yup.

[General Brittanicus]

The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers.

Every time a new monarch takes the throne they have to agree whether or not they will give up the revenues of the crown estates in exchange for money from the civil list. If you get rid of them, the government is breaking the contract and thus the royals would have a very good case in court for recieving ownership of part or all of those lands after they step down.

I for one am in favour of keeping the monarchy - if it isn't broke and doesn't cost me anything then why fix it. And I certainly do not want a President Tony Blair here - if people want to live in a crappy republic they are more than welcome to leave the country and do so.

[Denny Crane!]

Every time a new monarch takes the throne they have to agree whether or not they will give up the revenues of the crown estates in exchange for money from the civil list. If you get rid of them, the government is breaking the contract and thus the royals would have a very good case in court for recieving ownership of part or all of those lands after they step down.

I for one am in favour of keeping the monarchy - if it isn't broke and doesn't cost me anything then why fix it. And I certainly do not want a President Tony Blair here - if people want to live in a crappy republic they are more than welcome to leave the country and do so.

Are you just making this up?

Not sure how many times I will have to post things before people get it, though I wish they would just go to the crown estate website and read the damn thing.

Let’s be quite clear about the true nature of the Crown Estate: It is not and never has been the personal property of the Windsor family.

The key question is this: if we scrapped the Civil List or abolished the monarchy altogether, what would happen to the Crown Estate? The answer is simple: it would continue to raise revenue for the government.

That “exchange” the palace mentions was not an exchange between the family and government, it was a transfer of revenue from one branch of the state to another.

The Crown Estate has always been there to provide funds for the running of the government. A long time ago the government consisted of the King and his Privy Council. To pay for the apparatus of the state, which was much simpler and cheaper back then, the Crown Estate raised revenue that went directly to the King.

In the 18th century the job of government was moving from the palace to parliament, so revenue from the Crown Estate was transferred to the Treasury. Of course that money had also been used to run the palace and fund the lives of the King and his family. So in order to ensure the King could continue to run his palace in the style to which he was accustomed the government of the day set up the Civil List, a payment to the palace by the government.

Can we make this the last time? Or do British people just like to come on here and show how little they know about the affairs of their own country.


Oh and guess what bub, people who live here have as much right to see the country ran the way they want as you do, it is called a de-mo-cra-cy so the idea that if someone wants change they should leave? Well that idea is rather silly and quite frankly authoritarian. If people want change they can stay where they are and aim for it just like everyone else and if you do not like that....go or stay and fight your corner. What a horrible aggressive opinion to have.

[Condottiere 40K]

Depends on who actually has the title on those properties and concessions.

The nobility's estates and quite a lot of town charters were granted by the Crown, so to place in question their ruling family's entitlements could open up a big can of worms.

[Cesarz]

Can we make this the last time? Or do British people just like to come on here and show how little they know about the affairs of their own country.


Oh and guess what bub, people who live here have as much right to see the country ran the way they want as you do, it is called a de-mo-cra-cy so the idea that if someone wants change they should leave? Well that idea is rather silly and quite frankly authoritarian. If people want change they can stay where they are and aim for it just like everyone else and if you do not like that....go or stay and fight your corner. What a horrible aggressive opinion to have.

Perhaps a source would help your case?

But if the minority get their way then it's not really democracy, its rather silly and quite frankly authoritarian.
If a minority want change, I agree that they can stay and about it if they want.

[DaVinci]

@ Lady Rarity
Your posts indeed show a big lack of knowledge about your british history.
And as for tourism, if i'm going to Britain (ie. London), i give a on the Queen (while i personally have nothing against her, but also nothing for her, so to speak), the british royal family is perhaps for childs and old people an attraction, and for real royalists, if they still exist.

@ Denny
Supporting your posts. Are you the only British citizen with proper knowledge about the according affaires on TWC? Make a plea to the school-ministry, please. Britain should half the efforts for ie. Queen-tourist-shows etc., and transfer that to the school-education, i say.

[Denny Crane!]

@ Lady Rarity
Your posts indeed show a big lack of knowledge about your british history.
And as for tourism, if i'm going to Britain (ie. London), i give a on the Queen (while i personally have nothing against her, but also nothing for her, so to speak), the british royal family is perhaps for childs and old people an attraction, and for real royalists, if they still exist.

@ Denny
Supporting your posts. Are you the only British citizen with proper knowledge about the according affaires on TWC? Make a plea to the school-ministry, please. Britain should half the efforts for ie. Queen-tourist-shows etc., and transfer that to the school-education, i say.

This thread has actually been quite an eye opener and not in a good way.

[Azog 150]

In the past I have argued very much in favour of the Monarchy. I can see all the benefits it brings as an institution and as a lover of history the Monarchy, its past and its traditions appeal to me very much.

As you can see I am by no means a Republican.

I think country needs some real change. Now I don't see the Monarchy as standing in the way of that change- there are plenty of very forward thinking nations with Monarchies including the likes of Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands, as well as some of the Commonwealth Dominions (Again, something that as an admirer of history I see as a good and interesting connection to these places).

But I sometimes think that this love of the Monarchy is a wider symptom and reflection of the unwillingness of this country and its population to work towards being a more forward thinking country and bring about real change to the way things are run and who holds the power. This has especially been the case since the end of the Empire when people have tended to reminisce back to the 'good old days' rather then look forwards to the future. Looking to the future and reforming to suit it was ironically one of this countries strengths in the time many people spend looking back on. I agree with the argument that it wouldn't be much more then an image change, but perhaps its an image change we need to give us the impetus to move forward into the 21st Century and move away from our post-war problems.

Basically, I am neither pro-Monarchy nor pro-Republic. I am pro-Reform, and whether we do that with a Monarch at our head or a President it doesn't matter to me. There are far more pressing concerns about the state of our democracy that are often ignored in favour of these Monarchy debates. I just worry that Monarchism is part of a wider problem of looking backwards instead of forwards. Its not the Monarchy that makes us British or dictates our national identity and its not the Monarchy that is going to bring change. We are going to be British Monarch or no Monarch. We, the people, are what makes us British.

I just wish we would could restore some pride into this country and forge it into something worthy of that pride- Monarchy or otherwise.

[Azog 150]

In the past I have argued very much in favour of the Monarchy. I can see all the benefits it brings as an institution and as a lover of history I find that the Monarchy, its past and its traditions appeal to me very much.

As you can see I am by no means a Republican.

But I think country needs some real change. Now I don't see the Monarchy as standing in the way of that change- there are plenty of very forward thinking nations with Monarchies including the likes of Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands, as well as the Commonwealth Dominions (Again, something that as an admirer of history I see as a good and interesting connection to these places).

But I sometimes think that this love of the Monarchy is a wider symptom and reflection of the unwillingness of this country and its population to work towards being a more forward thinking country and bring about real change to the way things are run and who holds the power. This has especially been the case since the end of the Empire when people have tended to reminisce back to the 'good old days' rather then look forwards to the future. Looking to the future and reforming to suit it was ironically one of this countries strengths in the time many people spend looking back on. I agree with the argument that it wouldn't be much more then an image change, but perhaps its an image change we need to give us the impetus to move forward into the 21st Century and move away from our post-war problems.

Basically, I am neither pro-Monarchy nor pro-Republic. I am pro-reform, and whether we do that with a Monarch at our head or a President it doesn't matter to me. There are far more pressing concerns about the state of our democracy that are often ignored in favour of these Monarchy debates. I just worry that Monarchism is part of a wider problem of looking backwards instead of forwards. Its not the Monarchy that makes us British or dictates our national identity and its not the Monarchy that is going to bring change. We are still going to be British- Monarch or no Monarch. We, the people, are what makes us British.

I just wish we would could restore some pride into this country and forge it into something worthy of that pride- Monarchy or otherwise.

[Guidrion]

Being a citizen of Belgium, I'm experiencing Monarchy everyday. I'm in favor of a Republic considering no human should rule over others by right of birth (same reason I hardly like the "children of..." who get whatever they want because daddy or mummy makes swiss bankers happy but this is really not the topic).

However, Current constitutional European monarchies are more castrated remains of History than a fundamental wrong. Therefore, as long as they behave themselves and the people doesn't ask them to leave, I'm not going all 1789 on them. There are more important battles.
Moreover, monarchy also offers some advantages once it is castrated. Kings or Queen may also be of help in case of deep political crisis as a stability maker like in the 2007-2011 political crisis here. I also have the feeling it promotes a more humble way to behave for politicians but I may be wrong. Being Belgian, I may be nonobjective as there's also the small state factor. I should study a bit more the British and Spanish cases.

The question should really be: parliamentary republic, presidential republic, constitutional monarchy, ruling monarchy?

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

@ Lady Rarity
Your posts indeed show a big lack of knowledge about your british history.

I'm 17, and I have an interest in history, but due to constraints on my time there are massive gaps in my knowledge, my knowledge of the Normans goes from great detail in 1066, to literally nothing after Harold's mothers resistance was subdued, and apart from more recent history I only know of the Napoleonic era, have a passing knowledge of the medieval era, and Roman Britain I admit this, and if these gaps have affected my understanding, then I suggest that instead of merely pointing ant me and saying "Ha Ha" you tell me where I am wrong, I am arrogant, but I am not stupid, and If you will highlight what I have missed, I will attend to it.

[CiviC]

For some country monarchy is/would be better, for others republic is/would be better. Republic or monarchy aren't inherently bad or good.

For my country I would prefer a monarchy, the president in my country constatly abuses his power and Constitution, a neutral constitutional monarch in a parliamentary democracy won't/couldn't do that.

[Centurion.]

How do people from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other Commonwealth realms feel about Queen Elizabeth II being your head of state?

I'm from the UK and love our Royal Family, but I'm just curious as to what you feel about it.

[Ștefan cel Mare]

I support the monarchy, bring back King Mihai of Romania!

[Ketnix]

How do people from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other Commonwealth realms feel about Queen Elizabeth II being your head of state?

I'm from the UK and love our Royal Family, but I'm just curious as to what you feel about it.

Im from Bosnia but have been living in Australia for about 15 years now. So far the sense I get from everyday people is that they don't really mind either way. Its easy to find people who support the monarch, but harder to find those that wish to no longer have a monarch because most of those people arn't vocal about it mainly because it really isn't an issue. Yet again those that like the monarch arn't going around and openly doing anything, just when one asks you its more common for people to say they have no problem with the monarchy.

For me atleast im quite happy with staying with the monarchy, its an interesting piece of history to be apart of. I see no real reason in changing at all. If it isn't broken don't fix it. Although I do see it likely that sometime in the future Australia will move on, Australias still considered a young nation to Aussies.

Plus I just don't like the sound of President of Australia.

[Watercress]

For the most part, Monarchies don't do any harm, and as such are fairly popular, or not a political issue, at least, here in the UK. It's just incredibly hard to hate an old women. Just as long as we don't have a crazy Monarch in the near future, there's not really a problem with it.

[Jedi1]

How do people from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other Commonwealth realms feel about Queen Elizabeth II being your head of state?

I'm from the UK and love our Royal Family, but I'm just curious as to what you feel about it.

I'm also an Australian and I support the monarchy.

[D.B. Cooper]

How do people from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other Commonwealth realms feel about Queen Elizabeth II being your head of state?

I'm from the UK and love our Royal Family, but I'm just curious as to what you feel about it.

In Canada it goes from support to indifference. When Will & Kate visited last year support for the monarchy was at a high.

I can't see us becoming a republic any time soon. Any party suggesting we drastically uproot our country just so we could have a "President Harper", or whoever, wouldn't get a lot of support.