The British Monarchy: Should it Stay or Should it Go?

British Monarchy: Stay or Go?

  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Queen is dead, long live the King?

What do you think now that the throne has passed to King Tampon I?

Queen Elizabeth GIF by The Telegraph
 
That doesn’t clarify what though because that would also entail the rights of the unholy which wouldn’t happen. Essentially prisons and any detention defunct.
 
I’m intrigued to see what direction King Charles heads in. He is to be unbiased politically but has been pretty opinionated at times. So it will be interesting to see how he navigates.
 
British monarchy has been dead as a system for years. Pretty funny that brits are completely fine with their taxes going to the luxurious lifestyles of war criminals’ descendants.

It’s like paying to be the peasants under monarchy except the royal family is just there to LARP as leaders.
 
MissMotive said:
I’m intrigued to see what direction King Charles heads in. He is to be unbiased politically but has been pretty opinionated at times. So it will be interesting to see how he navigates.
Click to expand...
That’s one of the big differences between him and the Queen I think.

There was always that dignified mystery with the Queen that made it special whereas we already know what Charles thinks about most things
 
I suppose I can't really speak to highly of my own government at times...but I am confused how a current system can run off a Monarchy...

I have heard the arguments, oh the power is to the people now, and it wasn't like it was...but I think that is bs. Just another ploy to keep the royal family in power without any uprising.
 
MissMotive said:
Lol. Not British- no opinion.

Kidding.

The monarchy has no real power. It’s more heritage and tourist trapping.
Click to expand...
Acts of parliament can't be passed without Royal Assent, and the monarch also has the power to dissolve parliament through Royal Prerogative so the monarch really does have some power but they rarely exercise it.
 
emileh said:
Acts of parliament can't be passed without Royal Assent, and the monarch also has the power to dissolve parliament through Royal Prerogative so the monarch really does have some power but they rarely exercise it.
Click to expand...
*never

They never exercise their power. At least not in modern times. If they did, the monarchy would be abolished or have its powerless powers stripped back.

If a monarch refused to sign a bill, the law would be changed so as not to require it.

They hold so much power but none of it can be used without the consent of Parliament
 
Finn2.0 said:
Stay, simply because it's a British institution at this point and responsible for raising the tourism statistics. Plus old Liz is a national treasure.

No need for reform, just recognise it for what it is. A tourist attraction with minimal power and an uncanny ability to boost the nation as and when needed.

PS. Ask me again when Liz snuffs it.
Click to expand...
We are asking you again Master Yoda

I never really had any strong opinions on the monarchy but now that Elizabeth has passed I think it's time for Australia to be rid of the monarchy. I get the security benefits of being in the commonwealth but Australia (where I'm from) and the UK have a strong relationship and would defend each other anyway.

We have the monarch on our currency but recently our government has started to make excuses as to why they won't be doing it with Charles so I think perhaps they may even be considering another referendum (our last one was in 1999 and almost 55% voted to not become a Republic).
 
a British institution? I beg to differ. The British monarchy is German, like nearly all monarchies in Europe. The house of Windsor is originally Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, which originated in Thuringia and the Royal family prior to that one was German as well, the House of Hanover (Haus Hannover) and prior to that it was Dutch (and also German/French) House of Orange-Nassau (Oranje-Nassau) It hasn’t been British for roughly 334 years.
 
It's not about the titles of the monarchy. It's about the wealth.
Do not forget that monarchies still own huge parts of the continents ( the land ).
That is why peasants are paying taxes. ( to own the right to live on and off the land )

And with good reason. Many forefathers and the monarchy's members spilled their blood in battles all over the world to accumulate their land and wealth.
Monarchy is not a commie gift to the people. Its earned. 😉

Thus it should remain as a part of Capitalism.
 
Last edited:
brightie said:
It's not about the titles of the monarchy. It's about the wealth.
Do not forget that monarchies still own huge parts of the continents ( the land ).
That is why peasants are paying taxes. ( to own the right to live on and off the land )

And with good reason. Many forefathers and the monarchy's members spilled their blood in battles all over the world to accumulate their land and wealth.
Monarchy is not a commie gift to the people. Its earned. 😉

Thus it should remain.
Click to expand...
It was mostly a question of (arranged) marriages. The majority of them married into families and thus acquired more wealth and power and it wasn’t the blood of the monarchs that was spilt but that of the common people because of the aristocracy’s megalomaniac projects. Monarchies are inherently undemocratic and archaic and there’s no place for them.
 
If you think that the world is a democracy, then you are up for a huge negative surprise.
Aristocrats do rule the world.
Whether they be monarchs, religious authorities, or just aristocratic families.
It's all the same, They will always be on top,
-below them people in uniform and laws that protect them.
-on the bottom: all the rest ( folks )

Thus even if you do magic you can not replace monarchy ( in this case )
Maybe they can only change their name.
I do agree with that cause to many it's like a thorn in the eye.😂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top