Monarchy, Yay or Nay?

[Ongaru]

I hate the monarchy, i don't see why just because a family from a now useless form of power should be given all they have. It makes me sick knowing that part of the taxes people pay is put towards letting the royal family live such a lavish lifestyle even though they did nothing to deserve it.

The monarchy and the royal family is nothing but a sponge of tax payer's money that could be used for far more useful things, they should be stripped of their wealth and be done away with.

EDIT: Plus thanks to the monarchy we have one of the most pathetic national anthems on the face of the planet, it just makes us sound like a bunch of mindless bleeting sheep blindly following in the shadow of some useless old hag.

 

[O maestre]

the only type of monarchy i can support is the ancient israli one, where once a year the king would be beaten and humilated by his subjects to remind him that, no matter how much power he gains, he is still human

 

[captainwolfos]

Monarchy? Seriously? In the 21st century?

Listen. Strange women, lying in ponds, distributing swords is no basis for a system of governmenet. Supreme executive power dervies from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor, just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'ed put me away!

It's true!

^This made my day.

Seconded XD
All hail Monty Python XD

 

[captainwolfos]

I think the monarchy are a pointless waste of space with too much money and too much publicity for their own good.
But that could really be said for a lot of people.

I've never heard of our dear Queen mum actually doing anything apart from visiting neigbouring countries.

I think the only thing they're really good for, as with politicians, is to be taken the piss out of on Mock the Week.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

I. Those who argue that the monarchy is a waste of money: You are wrong, and have been proven wrong.

II. Those who keep pretending I am arguing for absolute rather than constituional monarchy- you are fools.

III. Those who disapprove of monarchy on moral grounds: Go and live in some rat-hole republic, then.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Im Dutch FYI.

I think our royal famely costs our country alot of money, but I do like the fact that our queen can block certain acts should it be really needed.

 

[Aardvark Soup]

Im Dutch FYI.

I think our royal famely costs our country alot of money, but I do like the fact that our queen can block certain acts should it be really needed.

I'm completely against the possibilty that the queen would be able to exert any form of power. On the other hand, if a right extremist like Geert Wilders would manage to get into the government this might not even be a bad thing.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Im Dutch FYI.

I think our royal famely costs our country alot of money, but I do like the fact that our queen can block certain acts should it be really needed.

I'm completely against the possibilty that the queen would be able to exert any form of power. On the other hand, if a right extremist like Geert Wilders would manage to get into the government this might not even be a bad thing.

I actually voted for him last time, trust me I wont make that mistake again. He's not the new "pim"

 

[Altorin]

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms, what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

 

[EchetusXe]

I am fundamentally opposed to the idea of a democracy with a little monarchy tagged on for good measure.

Either rule us as a King or we won't bother with the whole thing.

We should appoint an elephant as Head of State.

Would be good for national morale to see foreign dignitaries exchanging pleasantries with Jumbo.

 

[sms_117b]

Monarchy has stood the test of time, who is anyone to disagree with what works?

 

[EchetusXe]

Monarchy has stood the test of time, who is anyone to disagree with what works?

Fascism works.
People trafficking works.
Prostitution works.

 

[DragunovHUN]

Just one question. If the royal family pracitcally can't do anything in politics, why do you pay for their lifestyle? In a monarchy, the point is that the king/queen leads the country. When he/she gives that task to a government, why not just ditch him/her? Keeping him/her around for show is pointless. This seems completely illogical to me. Reforms please?

 

[Lord George]

Just one question. If the royal family pracitcally can't do anything in politics, why do you pay for their lifestyle? In a monarchy, the point is that the king/queen leads the country. When he/she gives that task to a government, why not just ditch him/her? Keeping him/her around for show is pointless. This seems completely illogical to me. Reforms please?

Because they bring in huge amount of revenue in the tourist trade, why would we get rid of such a productive part of the economy. She has no power so there's nothing to fear about her and its part of our national heritage. Also the queen has super powers and regularly saves London from monsters/fact

 

[L33tsauce_Marty]

Well if you take a look at the statistics I made up:

90% of people are assholes.

In turn you can see that democracy nor monarchy would be any different.

 

[DragunovHUN]

Just one question. If the royal family pracitcally can't do anything in politics, why do you pay for their lifestyle? In a monarchy, the point is that the king/queen leads the country. When he/she gives that task to a government, why not just ditch him/her? Keeping him/her around for show is pointless. This seems completely illogical to me. Reforms please?

Because they bring in huge amount of revenue in the tourist trade, why would we get rid of such a productive part of the economy. She has no power so there's nothing to fear about her and its part of our national heritage. Also the queen has super powers and regularly saves London from monsters/fact

I was particularly aiming that at Sweden (the OP). I don't recall anyone i know going to Sweden to see their royal family. Actually i didn't even know Sweden is a monarchy. Their marketing sucks. They make good cars though...

 

[EchetusXe]

Just one question. If the royal family pracitcally can't do anything in politics, why do you pay for their lifestyle? In a monarchy, the point is that the king/queen leads the country. When he/she gives that task to a government, why not just ditch him/her? Keeping him/her around for show is pointless. This seems completely illogical to me. Reforms please?

Because they bring in huge amount of revenue in the tourist trade, why would we get rid of such a productive part of the economy.

Do they Hell. Evicting the Queen doesn't mean we have to demolish Buckingham Palace. Granted, a minority of tourists may be swayed to go elsewhere so they can see some other medieval concept in action.

Turning Buckingham Palace into a museum people can actually visit and walk around in would probably attract more tourists if anything.

Besides which what kind of capitalist whore does one become if we start justifying vastly unfair and outdated institutions on the basis that it makes a bit of cash?

 

[IsoNeko]

Monarchies without power are pointless. Why? I mean, just why do we need them anymore?

 

[DragunovHUN]

Do they Hell. Evicting the Queen doesn't mean we have to demolish Buckingham Palace. Granted, a minority of tourists may be swayed to go elsewhere so they can see some other medieval concept in action.

Turning Buckingham Palace into a museum people can actually visit and walk around in would probably attract more tourists if anything.

+1 i'd rather go look around inside the palace than be near the queen.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Hey, Echeteus: Why don't you go an emigrate to America then, you awkward little commonwealth's-man?