British People: Monarch or No?

[Kirran]

Doubt I could find one anywhere in my state. I tried one once just because they were common in Adelaide, and it was kinda a 'When in Rome' thing. I mean, they weren't bad or anything, I just didn't see the point really.

You are clearly not a person of high culture.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You are clearly not a person of high culture.

I'll take that as a compliment, since it seems to imply that I am of low culture. This is a much higher cultural rating than I would normally apply to myself.

 

[Kirran]

I'll take that as a compliment, since it seems to imply that I am of low culture. This is a much higher cultural rating than I would normally apply to myself.

Likewise! Well, I dunno what my culture is

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They are a good tourist attraction.

Castles and palaces are good tourist attractions. Versailles is visited by almost 20 times as many tourists every year more than Buckingham Palace and the French haven't had a monarch in more than a century.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As an American, I don't see much of a huge problem from what I hear from English friends. The Prime Minister is the one who is elected, who people either hate or love.

No - the Prime Minister isn't elected. The Prime Minister is appointed by the monarch.

But the Monarch is supposed to be a shining example of the nation's values. Descended from the founder of the Kingdom of England himself (both the Norman king and the Saxon one). They're the ones who represent the nation and the British people, their heritage, and their traditions.

If not for the fact that the British people found the idea of their king being married to a divorced American commoner distasteful, "the one who represents the nation and the British people, their heritage, and their traditions" would have ended up being a Nazi sympathizer.

Here in the USA, we don't have that. We don't have a national symbol to unite under, despite our political differences. We don't have someone to represent our heritage and our traditions. You people in the UK however, do.
To destroy the British monarchy would be to destroy 1000 years of tradition, which began at the uniting of the several Anglo-Saxon kingdoms into the Kingdom of England.

It's a tradition worth destroying.

 

[Toten]

No - the Prime Minister isn't elected. The Prime Minister is appointed by the monarch.

Technically they are elected based on the General Election in the House of Commons, from what I read. And the appointee is the party with the most seats.

It's a tradition worth destroying.

Not really, in my opinion. Ever since the British monarchy was set up the way it is now, it's been a relatively peaceful and interesting concept in British culture. And ever since it started, it's been a symbol of English heritage and culture, not just to the people of England but to the entire world.
It's something that I, and Americans like me, have always respected about the United Kingdom. Past Monarchs have been known to take power for themselves and be anything BUT a representative of the culture and the people. But now it seems that, in my opinion, the UK has a system that works. The Monarchy is no longer a power that can cease control of anything and everything at any time like it was with people like King John, and nor is it a completely useless, meaningless, and pointless concept.

 

[Toten]

I'm from Wales, but I don't support Welsh independence to be honest. The kingdom was around long before the Normans! Actually William the Conqueror was able to invade due to an ongoing succession struggle to which he was a contender, along with two other lads.

How is the monarchy, the one thing that hasn't changed since 1066, standing up for how far we've come?

The monarchy has changed a lot actually, since 1066. But, in the long run, for the better. Instanes like King John or later on, the English Civil War, have happened. But now it's at a point now where the UK to me knowledge doesn't have to worry about Monarchs like that anymore, with the current system it has.

I didn't mean the actual title of KINGDOM OF ENGLAND was founded by the Normans, but I meant the system and monarchy that you in the UK have now. The Norman banner is still used in places of government, and the queen is a descendant of William the Conqueror himself.
She wouldn't be, and the kingdom as we know it now wouldn't exist, without the Normans.

The Normans.

 

[psychoslice]

I think its all a circus, but then it makes money for England with tourist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Technically they are elected based on the General Election in the House of Commons, from what I read.

No - the Prime Minister is appointed by the monarch based on her judgement that he or she will command the confidence of the House.

And the appointee is the party with the most seats.

Not always. Sometimes, a coalition of parties can form a government instead of a party that has the most seats but a minority.

Not really, in my opinion. Ever since the British monarchy was set up the way it is now, it's been a relatively peaceful and interesting concept in British culture.

... except for all the revolutions, coups, and a civil war.

And ever since it started, it's been a symbol of English heritage and culture, not just to the people of England but to the entire world.

... which is a problem, since the monarchy is supposed to represent not only England, but also Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and all of the Commonwealth realms. This second-class status for every country but one with the Queen as head of state makes the monarchy a symbol of colonialism, imperialism, and all of the problems that go along with it.

 

[Toten]

except for all the revolutions, coups, and a civil war.

I said the way it's set up NOW. Not the way it was set up in the English Civil War.

which is a problem, since the monarchy is supposed to represent not only England, but also Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and all of the Commonwealth realms.

And they do to a large extent. Look at all the pro-UK Irishmen in Ulster. How they swear allegiance to the crown and consider themselves "royalists, loyalists" and "tories". They aren't loyal to the Prime Minister, or the majority party, but the Monarch, the Nation, and its culture.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I said the way it's set up NOW. Not the way it was set up in the English Civil War.

So since the so-called "Glorious" Revolution?

And they do to a large extent. Look at all the pro-UK Irishmen in Ulster. How they swear allegiance to the crown and consider themselves "royalists, loyalists" and "tories". They aren't loyal to the Prime Minister, or the majority party, but the Monarch, the Nation, and its culture.

The Commonweath realms include places like Canada and Australia. Are you going to tell me that the person you describe as "a symbol of English heritage and culture [...] to the entire world" is also a symbol of Canadian, New Guinean, or Belizean culture as well?

 

[Toten]

The Commonweath realms include places like Canada and Australia. Are you going to tell me that the person you describe as "a symbol of English heritage and culture [...] to the entire world" is also a symbol of Canadian, New Guinean, or Belizean culture as well?

It's a symbol of their heritage and history, yes. But they're their own sovereign nations now, and a lot has changed since they became them, particularly Canada and Australia, not sure about the latter two.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's a symbol of their heritage and history, yes. But they're their own sovereign nations now, and a lot has changed since they became them, particularly Canada and Australia, not sure about the latter two.

But the distinct "heritage and history" of these countries is so insignificant that they can be represented with a symbol of English heritage and history?

Elizabeth has never so much as lived in Canada. In what way does she represent Canadian heritage? Heck - she's only ever visited Belize twice; how does she represent Belizean heritage?

 

[Toten]

But the distinct "heritage and history" of these countries is so insignificant that they can be represented with a symbol of English heritage and history?

I said not in Canada or Australia. I don't know about Belize or the other.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I said not in Canada or Australia.

No, you said that the monarchy is a symbol of their heritage and history.

I don't know about Belize or the other.

So when you said that the monarchy represents the Commonwealth realms "to a large extent", you weren't actually speaking from a position of knowledge?

 

[Toten]

No, you said that the monarchy is a symbol of their heritage and history.


So when you said that the monarchy represents the Commonwealth realms "to a large extent", you weren't actually speaking from a position of knowledge?

A symbol of their history, yes, but not anything relative to the present. I said that it has been a long time since they first became sovereign nations, and they have their own cultures and identity.

 

[Altfish]

Castles and palaces are good tourist attractions. Versailles is visited by almost 20 times as many tourists every year more than Buckingham Palace and the French haven't had a monarch in more than a century.

Well I live in the UK and have never visited Buckingham Palace, mainly because little is actually open and it is only at certain times of year. I have visited Versailles.
The French don't get very big crowds for Royal Weddings though.

 

[Kirran]

To be honest I think the royal family may be more divisive than unifying.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A symbol of their history, yes, but not anything relative to the present. I said that it has been a long time since they first became sovereign nations, and they have their own cultures and identity.

So this gets back to what I said earlier: the monarchy is a symbol of colonialism and imperialism. It doesn't symbolize these countries as they are now; it symbolizes the relationship when they were all secondary to and beholden to England.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

To me, an American, it depends on who the monarch is. I don't like Queen Elizabeth (too stuffy), Charles (Oooo) but I do like Prince William and Princess Kate a lot.

I hope William becomes king and wish him a long reign.

The chances are Charles reign will be quite short as he is not exactly a youngster.
William on the other hand could reign rather longer.