Originally Posted by Blofeld:
“This seems like a silly comment, but I'll bite.
I'm pro-republic. I have always had that view and would really struggle to change my view on that.
I don't think the Queen does literally nothing, I just think her role is over hyped and that all the arguments for retaining her are grossly exaggerated. I don't see why an elected head of state couldn't do exactly the same thing she does, just without all the pomp and ceremony and all the extended family. Surely we can all agree there is a bit too much money diverted towards the Royals and their extended sundry?
I don't accept she is responsible for stability or that tourism booms because of her. People make it sound as if republics don't have any tourism. Do people not go to Washington DC to see the White House? Do people not visit Germany and France to see Castles too? You never heard of anyone rushing to Liechtenstein purely because they have a Royal family. I wholeheartedly reject the claims that they bring in so much money. The tourists would still come in their droves if the Royals were to be kicked out tomorrow and that's a simple fact. My main objection to Monarchy is that it is not earned, it is just given by pure accident of birth and then we have no choice but to accept it and pay for it and we have no way whatsoever of getting rid of this person nor do we have any control over what to do or how they act.
Ceremonial heads of state are at least selected by the people of the nation they represent and can act in addition to the government as a kind of neutral representative on official levels. They would have to earn thier position and would be just as easy to replace if the people decided thus. I'm sure people will harp on about how we could end up with a Z list celebrity and how they would rather have the Queen, of course that's true, we could end up with a no hoper, but at the same time, that's who the people will have chosen. We could also end up with someone just as dignified as the Queen.
So yes, I am very much anti-Monarchy because for as long as we have them we are never a democratic nor fair society when we have one family at the top who have never had to do anything to get there.”
“This seems like a silly comment, but I'll bite.
I'm pro-republic. I have always had that view and would really struggle to change my view on that.
I don't think the Queen does literally nothing, I just think her role is over hyped and that all the arguments for retaining her are grossly exaggerated. I don't see why an elected head of state couldn't do exactly the same thing she does, just without all the pomp and ceremony and all the extended family. Surely we can all agree there is a bit too much money diverted towards the Royals and their extended sundry?
I don't accept she is responsible for stability or that tourism booms because of her. People make it sound as if republics don't have any tourism. Do people not go to Washington DC to see the White House? Do people not visit Germany and France to see Castles too? You never heard of anyone rushing to Liechtenstein purely because they have a Royal family. I wholeheartedly reject the claims that they bring in so much money. The tourists would still come in their droves if the Royals were to be kicked out tomorrow and that's a simple fact. My main objection to Monarchy is that it is not earned, it is just given by pure accident of birth and then we have no choice but to accept it and pay for it and we have no way whatsoever of getting rid of this person nor do we have any control over what to do or how they act.
Ceremonial heads of state are at least selected by the people of the nation they represent and can act in addition to the government as a kind of neutral representative on official levels. They would have to earn thier position and would be just as easy to replace if the people decided thus. I'm sure people will harp on about how we could end up with a Z list celebrity and how they would rather have the Queen, of course that's true, we could end up with a no hoper, but at the same time, that's who the people will have chosen. We could also end up with someone just as dignified as the Queen.
So yes, I am very much anti-Monarchy because for as long as we have them we are never a democratic nor fair society when we have one family at the top who have never had to do anything to get there.”
The idea of an elected head of state is as anarchronistic as a hereditary head surely? They are both costly and superfluous in a alleged democracy . The Queen has been unusually and surprisingly scandal free and rather singularly remarkable, unlike many royals and elected heads of state and I greatly admire her for her singularity.
I suffer royalty on a purely historical premis, to get rid of them to replace them with some other bo**ox layer of genuflecting protocol is nonsense.
Heads of State are generally surplus, costly, often easily corrupt and undemocratic despite protestations to the contrary .





”