Do we want a monarchy ?

Question

i asked a similar question not so long about how the queen thinks its a

good idea to set up a call line so we can pledge money to fix the palace when i asked this question it was closed down about 1hour after i asked i wonder why

Answer 1

The Queen is acceptable as a figure head but I deplore the rest of the " hangers on" which cost the taxpayers a ridiculous amount of money.

Answer 2

I don't,they are an anachronism!

Answer 3

You ain't got much choice.

Answer 4

Is this question about EU subsidies again?

Answer 5

With the in future expected United States of Europe, monarchy will be outdated and superseded and absolutely not necessary.

Answer 6

No, they are ridiculous.

Answer 7

No do away with the parasites we don't need them  

Answer 8

maybe because it's sort of treason? GOD SAVE THE QUEEN

Answer 9

Yes, but the EU has other ideas!

Answer 10

Of course not. Most politicians are corrupt and you don't want a corrupt King. Democracy is best!

Answer 11

I don't think anyone really wants them but they don't really do much so no one takes an awful lot of notice of them either.

Personally I wouldn't miss them if they were gone but don't see that they do any harm and the tourists like them.

Answer 12

do not care either way.

Answer 13

No

Answer 14

Do we want a monarchy?  I certainly do, can't speak for anyone else.

Answer 15

Just imagine this:

President John Prescott.

Don`t have too many nightmares.

Answer 16

mwah, they take less and less nowadays but i guess it wouldn't really matter if they disappeared  

Answer 17

As a nation, we want everything on the cheap.  Monarchy is cheap.  Compare the cost of keeping Betty and family to what it costs the French to maintain their president and you'll find we've got a bargain - and the associated pageantry keeps the tourists coming.  Most anti-royalists are influenced by all things American and their presidency is the most expensive and most corrupt system in the world.

So yes, we want a monarchy - at least until someone can come up with a better system.  I'd rather have a King Charles than a President Blair any day!

Answer 18

If we keep our monarchy, we'll have something in common with Holland, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Thailand, Japan, Jordan etc.

Or we could become a republic, and join the illustrious ranks of USA (Bush, anyone?), Italy (stable government?), Iraq, etc..

Keep the monarchy? Yes, please.

Answer 19

I think the monarchy is a good thing, but at the end of the day, they are so deeply written into all of our laws and legal systems etc. it would take so long to get rid of the monarchy, that we will never do it.

I think it is perhaps a good idea for the people to donate money towards the upkeep of Buckingham Palace, it is, after all, a publicly owned building, and it would be a shame if it fell into disrepair, not only because it is where our monarch lives and all our state banquets are held (foreign leaders aren't going to be too impressed with a crumbing palace) but because it is part of our history, whether we have a monarch or not.

We would need a head of state. If this was not a monarch, it could be the Prime Minister, but it would take up a lot of time that the PM just doesn't have, hence we would need a President, or other head of state.

Answer 20

Constitutional monarchy is cheap and efficient, and superior to an elected President.

To answer your subsidiary question, there are many important functions the Queen does which should be kept separate from the Prime Minister.

Firstly, symbolic.  National symbols (State Opening, national motto, flag, emblem, military insignia etc) are all royal, and are closely associated with the Monarch.  Being such, they are non-political.  Compare the undoubted dignity and respect of the Queen with the mockery and buffoonery which plagues the American Presidency, which is the equivalent of our monarch and premiership combined.

On an similar note, having the Queen deal with traditions and customs, and meeting and greeting VIPs ensures the Prime Minister has more time to deal with the actual business of government himself.  It is therefore more functional.

Secondly, scrutiny.  The Queen is a nonpolitical, non-careerist 'other' in the centre of government, and constantly keeps Herself up to date with the goings-on, decisions and debates taken by Her Government and Her Parliament.  weekly She grills the Prime Minister on his work, and She meets members of the Cabinet, as well as leaders of the other major parties, as well as senior civil servants, army commanders, diplomats, charity workers, business and trade union leaders regularly.  She's extraordinarily well informed and keeps Government on its toes on the inside where it hurts, and where Parliament struggles to penetrate.  Her rights as Sovereign is the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn.

Thirdy, constitutional, which is connected to the scrutiny function.  The Queen still retains a number of key powers.  In a normal constitutional framework, as we have now, She automatically accepts the requests of Her Ministers for whatever power they wish Her to exercise for them, such as Mercy, or dissolution of Parliament, or the appointment of the Prime Minister or Speaker of the House of Commons; but She grills them for their motives beforehand.

If, however, the accepted constitutional settlement were to break down or become gravely threatened, the Queen would be empowered to step in and salvage what She could.  Say, for example, the Prime Minister wished to call a snap General Election, in order to silence opposition within his party which wanted to unseat him - by calling an election they'd be forced to rally round him.  The Queen, in this scenario, would be right to deny the Prime Minister this request.  The Monarch has historically been crucial to resolving constitutional crises before - 1910 over the budget crisis, 1914 over Irish Home Rule (George V, by inviting the leaders of the political parties to Buckingham Palace to talk, allowed them all to save face to their supporters), 1923 over the looming Government crisis, and many more.

On the continent the monarch there is instrumental in forming governments, as they have PR and so coalitions are the norm.  The monarch, being inherited, has absolutely nobody to owe any favours for its position, and are constitutional required, also, to be neutral - in this way, they are the most trusted person in the country to fairly and openly endeavour to form a government to the maximum advantage of as many players.  The system works well in Belgium, Holland, and Denmark.  Sweden has the system of having the Speaker of the Riksdag do this, and it is a terrible, terrible system.

As for 'hangers on', I would point out that only two Royals get access to public funds - and they are the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Phillip.

Answer 21

No - we don't need a monarchy. The Royal Family is completely outdated. The whole idea of hereditary privilege is wrong. We should abolish the House of Lords and the Royal Family.

Shame on Yahoo! for closing the question down and denying you the right to free speech.

Answer 22

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. But I've thought about this many times and I really don't see what we gain by having a President instead of monarch.

If we imagine that we have a President - then presumably we have to have 2 elections - one for President and one your local MP. How we get a PM I'm not sure - the MP's choose him I suppose.

And what role would the President have - how much does he/she interfere with day to day politics. Right now we don't have any interfence from the Queen - unless we have a constitutional problem.

There is something very undemocratic about having a monarchy. But there is also a nice reassuring feeling of stability with a Royal Family providing continuity.

Finally, if we did convert to being a republic - what happens to the Queen and family? They don't just disappear. I think she would still be adored by those who support her - and disliked by the anti's - so nothing changes there.

I just don't see the point of changing  -  but please someone enlighten me - please challenge.

  

Answer 23

i honestly don't mind, the queen has no power - so why get rid of her considering all the tourist £s she brings. in addition, it makes us somewhat different from the federalised european states.

either way, i don't mind, but i think i would rather have all the history and stuff than not.  

Answer 24

The Monarch is guardian of our Constitution on behalf of the British people which is intended to  protect us against a rogue Government wishing to destroy democracy and our system of government. There is a division between Government of the day and the State, the Monarch representing the State, which is permanent, as against here today gone tomorrow Governments. 'Mark G' has put some detail on this.

The anti-Monarchists are usually ignoramuses who don't understand how our Constitutional Monarchy works, consequently, they want to get rid of something that they don't understand, and replace it with something the 'lefties' want.