Jump to content


Photo

Abolition of the Monarchy


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#1 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,972 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 18 February 2007 - 04:16 pm

Who would agree that the monarchy of the United Kingdom should be abolished?

I think they certainly should be, the monarchy should be stripped of their lands, property and titles. They have no actual role to play. People argue that they actually do a lot of work - but for the most part it is unecessary work, or at least work that they could do even if they weren't part of a monarchy.

The only other argument against abolition would be the tourism they attract. However, firstly I am unconvinced that it is such an important factor as France receives about four times as many tourists a year than Britain, and the Palace of Versailles gets three times more than Buckingham. Secondly the tourism factor does not justify the forced (taxed) support of the monarchy through taxes.
  • 0

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.


#2 Mastermind

Mastermind
  • Forum Member
  • 33 posts
  • Location:Coventry, UK.

Posted 18 February 2007 - 11:50 pm

I absolutely, 100%, agree. The monarchy is an outright violation of our individual rights.
  • 0
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." � Goethe

#3 Twilight

Twilight
  • Forum Member
  • 78 posts
  • Location:Philadelphia, PA.

Posted 19 February 2007 - 12:09 am

Might be redundant to say this, but I also agree.
  • 0

#4 Arbiter

Arbiter
  • Forum Member
  • 44 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom.

Posted 19 February 2007 - 02:22 am

I disagree. I think the monarchy is an important part of British heritage and culture which shouldn't be dismissed so easily. It does attract a great deal of tourism and the economy would likely suffer greatly if they were removed.
  • 0

#5 Mastermind

Mastermind
  • Forum Member
  • 33 posts
  • Location:Coventry, UK.

Posted 19 February 2007 - 04:25 pm

I disagree. I think the monarchy is an important part of British heritage and culture which shouldn't be dismissed so easily. It does attract a great deal of tourism and the economy would likely suffer greatly if they were removed.

Any figures to back that up? They are a drain on the economy because they require a hellovalot of upkeep. Worse still, they don't work for it, or at least they don't have to. I think the blow to tourism would be minimal, and in the long term the move would be beneficial.
  • 0
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." � Goethe

#6 iF0rmulae

iF0rmulae
  • Forum Member
  • 48 posts
  • Location:London, UK.

Posted 19 March 2007 - 01:33 pm

One way to get around the loss of £ factor: Sell them to another country for some large sum of money, then we both get rid of them and make a nice profit. ^_^
  • 0
μlae>

#7 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,972 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 20 March 2007 - 10:45 am

Here are some figures.

Royals cost Britain £36m a year.

"Good value and good quality", said the Keeper of the Privy Purse.

The Royal Family costs Britons £36m a year, equivalent to 61p per person, new figures on royal spending show.

Buckingham Palace's accounts showed that a trip made by Prince Charles to Sri Lanka, Australia and Fiji on a chartered plane cost £300,000.

The Queen got a rebate of over £1m after appealing against the business rate paid on Buckingham Palace.

Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, said the report highlighted a "value-for-money monarchy".

A chartered flight taken by the Duke of York to the Far East to promote UK interests cost just under £125,000.

The accounts also detailed a journey made by the Prince of Wales from Aberdeen to Plymouth, Devon, on the royal train that cost almost £45,000.

Mr Reid said: "We're not looking to provide the cheapest monarchy. We're looking at one of good value and good quality."

A train ticket might cost £100 maximum. So where did the other £44,900 go..?
  • 0

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.


#8 Dodders

Dodders
  • [DkR] Clan Member (Inactive)
  • 26 posts
  • Location:Exeter/Sydney
  • Short Name:Rupe

Posted 20 August 2012 - 08:54 am

I disagree.

If you remove all emotion and bias and look at it logicaly, they are a burden on the tax payer, their very existence and lifestyle takes a metaphorical dump on everyone paying their upkeep. Maintaining this solely logical view, the UK has very little going for it these days. Pretty much anything we can be proud of was accomplished generations ago. The streets are filled with yobs and chavs, the economy has gone down the shitter and we contribute very little on a global scale. However one of the only things that keeps England relevant is our history and our heritage, the culture that we have spread over the world and can take pride in.

If we abolish the Monarch I sincerely believe England will cease to have any major influence on the world and just fall into the shadow of America, having nothing to differentiate ourselves.

Please feel free to flame me now, my body is ready.
  • 0

#9 Wookybear

Wookybear
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 1,387 posts
  • Location:Manchester
  • Short Name:Wooky

Posted 20 August 2012 - 10:11 am

Epic necro there :-p

On topic, I actually don't mind them. They are probably less wasteful than the people we elect to run our country.

In fact, we probably waste more on "foreign aid" to countries that can afford to look after themselves.

Edited by Wookybear, 20 August 2012 - 10:16 am.

  • 0

bzTsWyk.png


#10 slowreflex

slowreflex
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 441 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:JT

Posted 20 August 2012 - 10:49 am

The Royals are not just a sunk cost. They also bring a lot of tourism into the country... potentially making more in tax from sales than they cost the taxpayers to support. I don't have that data at hand, but it is an important aspect.
  • 0

#11 Dodders

Dodders
  • [DkR] Clan Member (Inactive)
  • 26 posts
  • Location:Exeter/Sydney
  • Short Name:Rupe

Posted 20 August 2012 - 10:49 am

Oh shit, totally didn't see the date. Way to make a first post...
  • 0

#12 Quafe

Quafe
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 221 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Short Name:Stig

Posted 20 August 2012 - 11:07 am

I disagree. I rather enjoy living in a constitutional monarchy. Monarchy is a staple of the oldest nations. It's also a gimmick, no doubt. An expensive gimmick to attract tourists and placate the sense of patriotism of the citizens. All the same, it's pretty cool.
  • 0
O, from this time forth, my thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!

#13 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,972 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 20 August 2012 - 11:07 am

It's immoral for an arbitrary group of people to be afforded a life of luxury by forcing the rest of the population to pay for them, regardless of how much tourism they attract or how much pride they make people feel. If they were funded entirely voluntarily I'd have no problem with them.
  • 0

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.


#14 Wookybear

Wookybear
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 1,387 posts
  • Location:Manchester
  • Short Name:Wooky

Posted 20 August 2012 - 11:18 am

And who decides its immoral? They arent the only people that live a life of luxury at our expense, at least they are pretty open. All those greedy politicians that claim expenses for stupid stuff so we have to pay for it concern me much more.
  • 0

bzTsWyk.png


#15 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,972 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 20 August 2012 - 11:20 am

And who decides its immoral? They arent the only people that live a life of luxury at our expense, at least they are pretty open. All those greedy politicians that claim expenses for stupid stuff so we have to pay for it concern me much more.


The initiation of force is immoral. Too busy with guild stuff to go into detail, but yeah, 99.9% of what politicians do is also immoral.
  • 0

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.


#16 Quafe

Quafe
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 221 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Short Name:Stig

Posted 20 August 2012 - 11:21 am

As opposed to what? It is basic human nature that where there is poverty, there will also be prosperity. And the former always outnumbers the latter by a very large margin. If you got rid of monarchy, you'd still have celebrities, corporations, oligarchs and other criminals leeching money from ordinary people. At least monarchy acts as the face of a country. I would rather my taxes paid for their luxury than that of politicians and business magnates.

If you want complete equality, communism is the answer. And we all know how that turned out for for USSR.

Edited by Argent, 20 August 2012 - 11:23 am.

  • 0
O, from this time forth, my thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users