The Queen - useful or useless?

[Kaida23]

She's still the head of our church, and we are one of the few countries that still have a Monarch, thus attracting tourism. It's traditional these days, they don't have any real powers.

 

Not to mention the Royal Air Force and Royal Australian Air Force, Since we swear an alegienace (sp?) to HRM 'Liz II. Which is something i've always wondered, If we (Australia) were to become republic, what would happen to the our Air Force, let alone the Officers in it that swear an Oath of Sentence to HRM. Would they lose their jobs? Shipped off to England? Something thats puzzled me for 2 years now.

 

Canada has a similar governmental set up. We have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as a national police force for crying out loud. We also, like Australia, are essentially a constitutional monarchy. We have our own government and constitution, but still have a Governor-General wielding supreme veto power over anything the government tries to implement (although, if memory serves, that is a power that was only ever used once in Canada's history).

 

 

 

Like the Queen in England, the Governor-General in Canada has become simply a figurehead; a reminder of how our political system originally ran. Our GG also, like the Queen, seems to do nothing but eat up public funds holding functions for political figures from other countries and traveling the world. Heck, very few people in Canada, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, realize that the GG is technically our head of state and so is not seen as such (admit it, how many of you knew that Canada even had an official representative of the Queen here?). The Queen is seen as the head of state in England, and so if the monarchy was to be removed it would be seen by the rest of the world as a major change to England's political structure which would bring forth doubt about the country's stability and, ultimately, further lower an already dwindling voice in world events. Not to mention lower the value of the British Pound and, most likely, force them to adopt the Euro they fought so hard to keep out.

[Dizzle229]

I'm American so I really can't post an unbiased opinion on this, but does the Queen actually there for a reason, or is it just tradition?

[SHIPPOU]

She is a figure head of an outdated system of Government. Problem is she has the power to seize any land in England, void any law, and a few other powers she still has.

[l0l0lpur34]

She is a figure head of an outdated system of Government. Problem is she has the power to seize any land in England, void any law, and a few other powers she still has.

 

The last time the monarch refused to grant royal assent to a new law was 300 years ago - if she tried to do it today then there would be a revolution

[1_man_army]

The UK royal family costs over £37M in 2005 alone which doesn't include protection costs. I vaguely remember reading recently that they wanted more but I can't find an article on that at the moment.

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4119194.stm

 

 

 

I still don't buy the tourism argument, most tourists sees the Royals and their palaces wouldn't disappear if there wasn't a monarchy. Again, France is one of the biggest tourist capitals in the world but they got rid of their monarchy long ago. The argument doesn't work for me.

 

I'm not convinced on the money argument after seeing some of the recent scandals with MP expenses!

 

 

 

You can't really use the MP's expenses scandal as a justification because we actually have a say over who can be an MP and we can hold them to account over it. I don't agree with how MP's expenses are being dealt with either though.

 

-------------------

 

I enjoy the monarchy and like the current queen, but I can't justify the whole thing in my head. If anything reinforces the class system then this is it. Getting rid of the monarchy will also be an essential step in removing the church from the state. The Queen is the head of the church, too.

 

 

 

She's only the head of the church of England though (ironic for a family of Germans) she has to apoint a regent for the church of Scotland. That was one of the big arguments over potentially allowing Catholics into the Monarchy as well (they can't legally at the moment for those who don't know). People thought that it would threaten her position in the church of England which is ridiculous. I agree with separating the church from the state though, it really is archaic that we haven't, faith shouldn't mix with state.

 

--------------------------

 

She is a figure head of an outdated system of Government. Problem is she has the power to seize any land in England, void any law, and a few other powers she still has.

 

The last time the monarch refused to grant royal assent to a new law was 300 years ago - if she tried to do it today then there would be a revolution

 

 

 

Britain really isn't a revolutionary type of nation, we'd probably just sign a petition to complain and then form an orderly queue to hand it over to the government.

[Jaziek]

Without the royal family, the UK would be a completely different place, be it for better or for worse.

 

The monarchy serves no real purpose, but it is necessary to keep it simply because it is such an integral part of our culture that removing it would do more harm than good.

[Kaida23]

Without the royal family, the UK would be a completely different place, be it for better or for worse.

 

The monarchy serves no real purpose, but it is necessary to keep it simply because it is such an integral part of our culture that removing it would do more harm than good.

 

That same argument was made against independence in America in the 1700's.

[mmmcannibalism]

Without the royal family, the UK would be a completely different place, be it for better or for worse.

 

The monarchy serves no real purpose, but it is necessary to keep it simply because it is such an integral part of our culture that removing it would do more harm than good.

 

That same argument was made against independence in America in the 1700's.

 

 

 

America was bound to become independant eventually, its economy and therefore its influence were becoming to strong for an island to rule a continent.

[Jaziek]

Without the royal family, the UK would be a completely different place, be it for better or for worse.

 

The monarchy serves no real purpose, but it is necessary to keep it simply because it is such an integral part of our culture that removing it would do more harm than good.

 

That same argument was made against independence in America in the 1700's.

 

 

 

The English monarchy has been around a LOT longer than American independence.

[dusqi]

I'm fine with the Queen. She is cheap to keep around, she gets publicity and tourism for the UK, she does her diplomatic bit, she confuses Americans who think she's important.

 

 

 

Bit worried about Charles taking over. I don't want him spouting his rubbish views about organic food and alternative medicine, as if he represents the whole UK.

 

 

 

So I'm happy with the monarchy as long as they don't try to actually do anything.

[Kaida23]

Without the royal family, the UK would be a completely different place, be it for better or for worse.

 

The monarchy serves no real purpose, but it is necessary to keep it simply because it is such an integral part of our culture that removing it would do more harm than good.

 

That same argument was made against independence in America in the 1700's.

 

The English monarchy has been around a LOT longer than American independence.

 

Granted, but it doesn't invalidate the comparison.

 

 

 

If England were to remove the Queen from power, yes there would most likely be a period of discontent and even economic depression. However, I feel that if the British were, ultimately, able to move past the power structure they have clung to for 500 years they would reemerge with a stronger sense of self and begin building themselves back up into a world power that would once again rival the United States.

 

 

 

That being said, I feel that if Queen Elizabeth can remain on the throne long enough for Prince Charles to decide that he is too old to assume it (except, perhaps, for a token period just so he can say he *was* King), then hope is on the horizon in the form of Prince William. Good looking, well liked and with no small amount of his mother's charm, he may be just what an ailing world power like England needs: a recognizable, intelligent, charismatic King who can begin to steer his country in a new direction while still being young enough to remain in power for years to come, and who may yet influence world events in ways no one can predict.

[1_man_army]

 

If England were to remove the Queen from power, yes there would most likely be a period of discontent and even economic depression.

 

 

 

Please explain the logic behind that statement because I can't think how removing the Queen and economic depression go together.

[Boris5000]

I love the queen, and think she is great.

 

 

 

She's one of the things that England can say.

 

"hey USA, you don't have a monarchy, up yours"

 

 

 

Figure of speech.

[xxamzyxx]

the queens jst useless she jst sits at her thone all day sipping tea and eatin biscuis she does noffin to the country

 

 

 

we shouldnlt even have a queen shes been thre long enough let some1 else have a turn shish man looolll

 

 

 

*gets AK57 OUT* LOOLLSS X

[Racheya]

she confuses Americans who think she's important.

 

I love the queen, and think she is great.

 

 

 

She's one of the things that England can say.

 

"hey USA, you don't have a monarchy, up yours"

 

 

 

Figure of speech.

 

Hehe :D I love her for both of these reasons. :thumbup:

 

 

 

That being said, I feel that if Queen Elizabeth can remain on the throne long enough for Prince Charles to decide that he is too old to assume it (except, perhaps, for a token period just so he can say he *was* King), then hope is on the horizon in the form of Prince William. Good looking, well liked and with no small amount of his mother's charm, he may be just what an ailing world power like England needs: a recognizable, intelligent, charismatic King who can begin to steer his country in a new direction while still being young enough to remain in power for years to come, and who may yet influence world events in ways no one can predict.

 

 

 

I think we should really hope for this :)

 

 

 

the queens jst useless she jst sits at her thone all day sipping tea and eatin biscuis she does noffin to the country

 

 

 

we shouldnlt even have a queen shes been thre long enough let some1 else have a turn shish man looolll

 

 

 

*gets AK57 OUT* LOOLLSS X

 

:-s You be a'trollin?

 

ALL British people sit around drinking tea and biscuits. It's a scientifically proved fact. :shame:

[Da_Latios]

ALL British people sit around drinking tea and biscuits. It's a scientifically proved fact. :shame:

Well, 'least tea and biscuits are healthier than Big Macs and Coke.

[Racheya]

ALL British people sit around drinking tea and biscuits. It's a scientifically proved fact. :shame:

Well, 'least tea is healthier than Big Macs.

 

Damn right. :thumbup:

[Boris5000]

ALL British people sit around drinking tea and biscuits. It's a scientifically proved fact. :shame:

Well, 'least tea is healthier than Big Macs.

 

Damn right. :thumbup:

 

 

 

Thank god, I'm not a true brit... Sorry all you brits for exploiting and loving your queenie so dearly. She's like a second mother to me.

[xxamzyxx]

the queens jst useless she jst sits at her thone all day sipping tea and eatin biscuis she does noffin to the country

 

 

 

we shouldnlt even have a queen shes been thre long enough let some1 else have a turn shish man looolll

 

 

 

*gets AK57 OUT* LOOLLSS X

 

:-s You be a'trollin?

 

ALL British people sit around drinking tea and biscuits. It's a scientifically proved fact. :shame:

 

 

 

 

 

.....not everyone.......she makes money by doin noffin, we never hear her do anythin:S:S:S:S

[Kaida23]

 

If England were to remove the Queen from power, yes there would most likely be a period of discontent and even economic depression.

 

Please explain the logic behind that statement because I can't think how removing the Queen and economic depression go together.

 

Perceived governmental instability.

 

 

 

Removal of the reigning monarch and dissolution of the current political structure would, despite what they would outwardly say, give the other nations, and more specifically the leading companies/investors in those nations, the impression that England was not a stable place to invest or do business. Reduction in trade with other countries, especially in a country as small as England who has no hope of producing everything it's industries need, could easily lead to a recession. A recession would lead to companies laying off employees or closing altogether. That, in turn, would lead to increased unemployment which would further increase the impression of instability and cause more countries/people to pull their investments out. It's a vicious downward spiral which can be very difficult to pull out of.

[Racheya]

ALL British people sit around drinking tea and biscuits. It's a scientifically proved fact. :shame:

Well, 'least tea is healthier than Big Macs.

 

Damn right. :thumbup:

 

 

 

Thank god, I'm not a true brit... Sorry all you brits for exploiting and loving your queenie so dearly. She's like a second mother to me.

 

Wat?

 

 

 

I just think the queen is a pretty cool guy, she drinks tea and doesn't afraid of America.

 

 

 

the queens jst useless she jst sits at her thone all day sipping tea and eatin biscuis she does noffin to the country

 

 

 

we shouldnlt even have a queen shes been thre long enough let some1 else have a turn shish man looolll

 

 

 

*gets AK57 OUT* LOOLLSS X

 

 

 

:-s You be a'trollin?

 

ALL British people sit around drinking tea and biscuits. It's a scientifically proved fact. :shame:

 

 

 

 

 

.....not everyone.......she makes money by doin noffin, we never hear her do anythin:S:S:S:S

 

 

 

She works as a diplomat for our country, and could theoretially pwn the government if she needed. While it might not be really obvious and amazing, she does a lot for the country, she does rule it after all.

[Boris5000]

the queens jst useless she jst sits at her thone all day sipping tea and eatin biscuis she does noffin to the country

 

 

 

we shouldnlt even have a queen shes been thre long enough let some1 else have a turn shish man looolll

 

 

 

*gets AK57 OUT* LOOLLSS X

 

:-s You be a'trollin?

 

ALL British people sit around drinking tea and biscuits. It's a scientifically proved fact. :shame:

 

 

 

 

 

.....not everyone.......she makes money by doin noffin, we never hear her do anythin:S:S:S:S

 

 

 

Actually, the queen has a real tough time...

 

She has to manage a family. Cook food, do washing up, like any good mother. Oh wait...

 

 

 

But seriously, she does actually do alot behind those closed doors, she has to make public appearances to please the tourists that flock into london you know... I think after 1,000 times it gets a bit boring?

[1_man_army]

 

If England were to remove the Queen from power, yes there would most likely be a period of discontent and even economic depression.

 

Please explain the logic behind that statement because I can't think how removing the Queen and economic depression go together.

 

Perceived governmental instability.

 

 

 

Removal of the reigning monarch and dissolution of the current political structure would, despite what they would outwardly say, give the other nations, and more specifically the leading companies/investors in those nations, the impression that England was not a stable place to invest or do business. Reduction in trade with other countries, especially in a country as small as England who has no hope of producing everything it's industries need, could easily lead to a recession. A recession would lead to companies laying off employees or closing altogether. That, in turn, would lead to increased unemployment which would further increase the impression of instability and cause more countries/people to pull their investments out. It's a vicious downward spiral which can be very difficult to pull out of.

 

 

 

I'm glad you cleared that up but I still don't agree. Its pretty well known by anyone who has any dealings with Britain that the Queen has little practical power and that the powers she does have are ceremonial in practice. I don't foresee any perception that the country will become unstable if the Monarchy goes. We've got a long established reputation for global trade that I can't see being obliterated overnight by getting rid of the Royals, if the British are known for anything it is for being 'civilised' there is little chance of any dissolution ending up in a constitutional crisis (not that we have a written one anyway but now we're splitting hairs).

 

 

 

In short, the dissolution of the Monarchy would have zero, or negligible, effect on our system of government in practice which is the cornerstone of your theory.

[Kaida23]

[hide=Please expand to see the whole conversation.]

 

If England were to remove the Queen from power, yes there would most likely be a period of discontent and even economic depression.

 

Please explain the logic behind that statement because I can't think how removing the Queen and economic depression go together.

 

Perceived governmental instability.

 

 

 

Removal of the reigning monarch and dissolution of the current political structure would, despite what they would outwardly say, give the other nations, and more specifically the leading companies/investors in those nations, the impression that England was not a stable place to invest or do business. Reduction in trade with other countries, especially in a country as small as England who has no hope of producing everything it's industries need, could easily lead to a recession. A recession would lead to companies laying off employees or closing altogether. That, in turn, would lead to increased unemployment which would further increase the impression of instability and cause more countries/people to pull their investments out. It's a vicious downward spiral which can be very difficult to pull out of.

 

 

 

I'm glad you cleared that up but I still don't agree. Its pretty well known by anyone who has any dealings with Britain that the Queen has little practical power and that the powers she does have are ceremonial in practice. I don't foresee any perception that the country will become unstable if the Monarchy goes. We've got a long established reputation for global trade that I can't see being obliterated overnight by getting rid of the Royals, if the British are known for anything it is for being 'civilised' there is little chance of any dissolution ending up in a constitutional crisis (not that we have a written one anyway but now we're splitting hairs).[/hide]In short, the dissolution of the Monarchy would have zero, or negligible, effect on our system of government in practice which is the cornerstone of your theory.

 

If the British Monarchy was dissolved, I do hope that there would be no ill effects. Your argument certainly makes a lot of sense. Admittedly, I'm not an economist and have based my argument on what I've seen of business and government practices. Still, as you pointed out, it is just a theory. :

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

 

If England were to remove the Queen from power, yes there would most likely be a period of discontent and even economic depression.

 

Please explain the logic behind that statement because I can't think how removing the Queen and economic depression go together.

 

Perceived governmental instability.

 

 

 

Removal of the reigning monarch and dissolution of the current political structure would, despite what they would outwardly say, give the other nations, and more specifically the leading companies/investors in those nations, the impression that England was not a stable place to invest or do business. Reduction in trade with other countries, especially in a country as small as England who has no hope of producing everything it's industries need, could easily lead to a recession. A recession would lead to companies laying off employees or closing altogether. That, in turn, would lead to increased unemployment which would further increase the impression of instability and cause more countries/people to pull their investments out. It's a vicious downward spiral which can be very difficult to pull out of.

 

 

 

I'm glad you cleared that up but I still don't agree. Its pretty well known by anyone who has any dealings with Britain that the Queen has little practical power and that the powers she does have are ceremonial in practice. I don't foresee any perception that the country will become unstable if the Monarchy goes. We've got a long established reputation for global trade that I can't see being obliterated overnight by getting rid of the Royals, if the British are known for anything it is for being 'civilised' there is little chance of any dissolution ending up in a constitutional crisis (not that we have a written one anyway but now we're splitting hairs).

 

 

 

In short, the dissolution of the Monarchy would have zero, or negligible, effect on our system of government in practice which is the cornerstone of your theory.

[/hide]

 

 

 

I think there would be some small effects, just a weird economic tendency to overreact to everything.